Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

MESSAGE FROM THE COUNCIL OF STATE

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND)

The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported to the House That their Address of 25th February relating to Local Government (Scotland) had been presented to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother and Her Royal Highness the Princess Anne, Mrs. Mark Phillips; and that Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother and Her Royal Highness the Princess Anne, Mrs. Mark Phillips, had been pleased to receive the same very graciously and to give the following Answer:

We, Counsellors of State, to whom have been delegated certain Royal Functions as specified in Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the Realm dated 3rd February 1977 have received your Address praying that the Lothian and Strathclyde Regions (Greenrigg and West Graigs) Boundaries Order 1977 (S.1., 1977, No. 107 dated 5th January 1977, be annulled.

On Her Majesty's behalf we will comply with your request.

LEICESTER PRISON (SECURITY)

Return ordered,

Address for Return of the Report of an Inquiry by the Chief Inspector of the Prison Service into Security at Her Majesty's Prison Leicester, and the arrangements for conducting prisoners to Courts. (Escape of William Thomas Hughes on 12th January 1977.)— [Dr. Summerskill]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Freight Costs

Mr. Hardy: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what was the average cost in terms of ton/miles of moving bulk freight by each form of inland transport in each of the past two years; and what is his estimate of likely changes in cost in the immediate future.

The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John Horam): Statistics in this form are not readily available. There are some figures of comparative expenditure on road and rail goods transport in paper 1 of volume 2 of the transport policy consultation document.

Mr. Hardy: Does the Minister realise that he did not mention inland waterway transportation? In view of the fact that it is potentially the least expensive form of movement of freight, will he consider it, and will he express a view on whether inland waterways should be the responsibility of his Department?

Mr. Horam: This is a very popular idea. My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) suggested something similar when we last had transport Questions. However, I should point out that it would entail an enlargement of the transport empire, and there. fore I cannot possibly encourage it.

Mr. Walter Johnson: Is the Minister aware that at present competition is very unfair, because his Department has instructed British Rail to phase out its subsidy to the freight services, while at the same time juggernaut lorries in this country are being subsidised to the tune of £70 million a year on the motorways and roads? What does he intend to do about it?

Mr. Horam: My hon. Friend has hit on a subject of great current interest. I know that it is a matter of considerable concern that we reach a sensible conclusion on it. I am convinced that we muse look at the allocation of costs and get them right, and we shall do that in the White Paper.

Mr. Temple-Morris: Is the Minister aware that the fact that the figures are unavailable in the terms of this Question demonstrates the need to have specific figures, particularly for British Rail's various services, in order to assess where the taxpayers' money is going and where the losses and the gains are? Will the Minister keep this important fact in mind?

Mr. Horam: I understand the hon. Member's point, but it is not as simple as it sounds. There are a lot of figures on this subject and it is a question of which ones one chooses and which ones are relevant. Figures for freight transported by road, rail and waterways are relevant only if they are compared for a particular journey between specific points. If one compares figures for these three methods of transport generally, one brings in a number of other factors—for example, lorries tend to make shorter journeys than the railways, and that does bias the figures. This is a very complicated question, and these are some of the points that must be sorted out.

Car and Rail Travel

Mr. Spearing: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what account he is taking of the comparative cost of family travel by car and rail in his White Paper proposals for transport.

Mr. Horam: In drawing up our White Paper we shall take full account of the needs of people and families, and of how far they can be met within the resources available.

Mr. Spearing: I am grateful for that reply. Does the Minister realise that this will take some effort on his Department's behalf? To travel from Custom House to Stratford and return for a family—assuming that that means two and a half fares—means a cost of £.1·38 for six miles. Does he also realise that, taking the House of Commons car allowance, the journey could be done for nearly half the cost by car? If this is true of short urban journeys it must also be true of longer journeys. Has the Department taken account of these facts in drawing up the White Paper?

Mr. Horam: I am aware of the concern arising in connection with services between North Woolwich and Stratford, in my hon. Friend's constituency. It does

seem to be a striking example of a marked increase, because there were certain anomalies before. In the context of inner city problems we shall certainly look at commuting and the rôole that rail can play.

Mr. Fry: Following that supplementary question from the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), will the Minister confirm that a family going by car pay their own way, unsubsidised by the taxpayer, whereas a family going by rail may be subsidised by up to 50 per cent. of the fare charged?

Mr. Horam: That bears again on the general question of the allocation of costs. Of course it is true that the car owner pays a bigger share of road costs than, for example, does the lorry owner. I agree with the hon. Gentleman to that extent. Nevertheless, this begs the question of how far we have properly allocated or accounted for environmental costs, for example. We do not really do that at the moment.

European Community (Transport Ministers)

Mr. Whitehead: asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he will next preside at the Transport Council of European Ministers.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. William Rodgers): Probably during April.

Mr. Whitehead: On that occasion, will my right hon. Friend urge his fellow Ministers to implement EEC Commission proposal 336 last year for specific Community aid for transport infrastructure? Will he bear in mind in so doing the fact that the then EEC Commissioner for Transport said that a Channel Tunnel project would be within the terms of reference of such aid?

Mr. Rodgers: Certainly I shall bear in mind my hon. Friend's suggestion. I know that there has been a revival of interest in the prospect of the Channel Tunnel. If EEC funds were to be available it would be wrong not to look at it.

Mr. Costain: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate what that last statement means? A number of my constituents are having great difficulty selling houses because they can get no advice


from the Government about whether the Channel Tunnel project is on or off. Will he make it clear that he has no intention of reintroducing that measure in the near future?

Mr. Rodgers: The Channel Tunnel project is clearly off in the terms in which it was discussed some years ago, but, as I told my hon. Friend, if the EEC is making proposals about infrastructure it would be discourteous of us not to look at them.

Mr. Robin F. Cook: When my right hon. Friend next meets the Council of Ministers will he reflect that he is investing less in the railway system than any of his three counterparts with equivalent population, and that he is investing no more than his opposite number in Belgium, which has one-fifth of Britain's population?

Mr. Rodgers: As my hon. Friend knows, it is easy to draw broad conclusions from narrow facts. However, I agree that the questions of investment in rail and the relationships between road and rail are suitable subjects for discussion within the Community. I have been hoping that we would be able to find time to look at them.

Mr. Norman Fowler: May I take the Secretary of State on to another problem? Is he aware that the enormous success of the British road haulage industry in developing routes overseas and in Europe, particularly to the Middle East, is now being seriously jeopardised by the difficulty of getting sufficient international permits') Will he point out to the other Ministers that this is now a major source of concern in the British road haulage industry in an area in which we would hope for and expect considerably more generous treatment from them than we have hitherto received?

Mr. Rodgers: I am happy to pay tribute to what the road hauliers have done in this respect. I do not think that their success so far has been jeopardised by problems with permits, but I agree that this is a cause of concern. However, we must understand the problems of countries with a large volume of transit vehicles, which involve substantial costs on their roads.

Lorries (Maximum Loads)

Mr. Bagier: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received from the Civic Trust on EEC proposals to increase maximum lorry weights.

Mr. William Rodgers: I met representatives of the Civic Trust on 26th January. We discussed the environmental problems of lorries generally and the current EEC proposals on weights and dimensions in particular.

Mr. Bagier: I am sure that my right hon. Friend appreciates that the environmental and social consequences of granting an increased lorry load to 40 tons would be very serious, but does he agree that if 40-ton lorries are permitted in this country the road hauliers will get an even greater advantage over rail freight, which will not only damage the latter system but will create tremendous problems throughout the country?

Mr. Rodgers: My hon. Friend makes important and relevant comments on the matters involved in increasing the weights of lorries. I have made it clear that I would not agree to such an increase unless it could be reconciled with the needs of safety and the environment. However, my hon. Friend's supplementary question also brings us back to the problem of how far heavy vehicles meet their true cost, which is a matter of concern to my hon. Friend and to the House generally.

Mr. Stephen Ross: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Lorries and the Environment Committee is still in existence? Is this not a matter that could be referred to that committee, so that it could report generally to him?

Mr. Rodgers: The answer to both questions is "Yes".

Mr. Moate: Does the Secretary of State expect an early decision to be reached on this matter? Would he wish the House to have an opportunity to express its views on the matter before any such decision is reached?

Mr. Rodgers: The answers are "No" and "Yes". This is something that the House should discuss.

Mr. Ron Thomas: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this considerable increase to 40 tons cannot really be reconciled with the needs of the environment, in view of the hazards that it presents? Is he aware that at Avonmouth, in my constituency, serious hazards have been caused recently by these large tankers? Can he assure us that, on behalf of hon. Members on the Government side anyway, he will oppose the increase to 40 tons which the EEC would like to impose on us?

Mr. Rodgers: As my hon. Friend knows, it is not simply or even mainly the overall weight of a vehicle which matters but its axle weight. On this, we have been able to make some satisfactory progress in the Community. However, I have certainly made my position clear and I recognise that there is real concern on both sides of the House, for a number of different reasons.

Public Transport (Inter-Urban Journeys)

Mr. Robin F. Cook: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made in the study of future long-term demand for, and provision of, public transport for inter-urban journeys as proposed in the transport policy consultation document.

Mr. William Rodgers: Preparatory work continues, but final decisions await my White Paper.

Mr. Cook: As the study is not seeking to draw a conclusion from a narrow fact but is considering the wider implications of investment and development strategy for all transport industries, would it not be helpful to my right hon. Friend and to the House to have that report before the White Paper is published? Will he also say what arrangements he will be making for interim consultations with the Leitch Committee, since its consideration of the allocation of costs will be germane to the debate on his White Paper?

Mr. Rodgers: I do not think that I could give the promise for which my hon. Friend asks, because that would probably mean postponing the White Paper for two or three years, for the very reason that he mentions. This is a complex and important subject, but I

hope that the conclusions that will emerge will help to determine policy for a long way ahead. It will not be prejudiced by the publication of the White Paper. As for the Leitch Committee, my hon. Friend knows its terms of reference. I hope that it will report quickly, but I do not think that I should consider asking it to undertake different tasks.

Mr. Thompson: Bearing in mind the views of the Secretary of State for Social Services about smoking, will the right hon. Gentleman be looking at the modern Inter-City carriages, with a view to separating smokers from non-smokers by means of separate carriages rather than the half-and-half carriages which are used at present?

Mr. Rodgers: That is an attractive and interesting suggestion. I am afraid that it is really for the management of British Railways, but I am sure that they will note what the hon. Gentleman says.

Mr. Hoyle: When he is considering the provision of future investment, will my right hon. Friend please ask British Railways when they will put investment into rolling stock on suburban journeys? If something is not done quickly for the journeys between Preston and Colne, the rolling stock there will disintegrate one of these days.

Mr. Rodgers: I think that that question goes rather wider than the main one, but I am sure that the Chairman of British Rail will note what my hon. Friend has said.

M23 (Extensions)

Mr. Douglas-Mann: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what review he is conducting of the proposed further extensions of the M23; and when he expects to be able to announce the results of such review.

Mr. Horam: Following my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment's statement of October 1975 on the Greater London Development Plan, the Greater London and Surrey County Councils are participating with the Government in a survey of the possibilities for the termination of the M23. The outcome of this study is unlikely to be known before the end of the year.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: Does my hon. Friend not agree that the further that trunk routes are extended into inner cities the more traffic they generate? As—I understand—the earliest date upon which it is possible that this road will be started is 1981, with completion, presumably, not until 1983, by which time oil supplies will again be becoming a serious problem, does he not agree that it is crazy for us to allow the blight and misery that this causes to continue? Will he not cut through the red tape and declare now that this road will not be extended beyond Mitcham Common?

Mr. Horam: The relevant question here is whether there is a proper terminating point for the sort of radial route about which my hon. Friend is concerned. As he knows, there is a terminating point on the M25. One could stop the M23 roughly at Hooley and go no further north. Nevertheless, there are many complications in just deciding the matter like that: that is why this study is being set up. I am sorry that it cannot report more quickly, because I understand the blight problem that concerns my hon. Friend and all of us, but I am sure that it will report as soon as possible. I shall certainly see that it does.

Integrated Transport Policy

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what he understands by the term "integrated transport policy".

Mr. William Rodgers: An adequate reply would require not a sentence but a speech, which would explain how the thoughtful planning of transport resources can contribute significantly towards meeting the country's economic and social needs.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Does the Minister realise that that reply is like saying "Lord give me chastity but not yet"? Does he agree that an integrated transport policy must be constantly sought but that it can never be final because the parameters are changing and being up-dated all the time? Does he further agree that urgently required transport needs, such as the completion of motorway schemes, should not be delayed while the Government, of what-

ever complexion, are searching for a will-o'-the-wisp integrated transport policy?

Mr. Rodgers: That was an ingenious question and, rather to my surprise, I was trying to find a point with which I disagreed. What the hon. and gallant Member said about change is absolutely true. We must recognise the changing needs in transport and the need for a flexible system. At the same time when we are pursuing major policy questions we should not delay necessary steps to solve current problems.

Mr. Fitch: When working on an integrated transport policy will the Minister consult Mr. Jack Jones, who believes that the case for road transport has not been put strongly enough?

Mr. Rodgers: I have frequent consultations with all the transport unions. It is important to preserve a balance between investment in road and rail and between the different modes and types of transport. When we discussed these matters in the debate recently my hon. Friend made an important contribution.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Does the Minister agree that an integrated transport policy that ended the competition between the different modes of transport would be likely to increase transport costs?

Mr. Rodgers: That might be true in certain circumstances, but calculations are not as simple as that. An element of consumer choice in transport is important.

Mr. Loyden: Does my right hon. Friend agree that an integrated transport system that was designed to meet the total needs of the community would require the public ownership of the ports, for instance, and, indeed, of the whole of the transport industry? Does the Minister agree that one cannot plan an integrated transport system unless it is publicly owned?

Mr. Rodgers: I do not entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I am well aware of his views about the extension of the public sector to the transport industry, and he has made an important point, but in a mixed economy we cannot assume that we can have more thoughtful planning of our transport system or any part


of our industrial system simply by waiting for changes in ownership. We must act sooner than that.

Mr. Adley: Does the Minister agree that it is urgent that we should complete the motorway routes to our ports, particularly where there are gaps? Does he agree that that should be the first priority?

Mr. Rodgers: Yes, with some qualifications, and given that the completion of the motorway network must come within the available resources, which, as the hon. Member knows, have been constricted.

Rail Commuters

Mr. Neubert: asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will meet representatives of the National Association of Rail Passengers to discuss the problems of commuters.

Mr. Horam: My right hon. Friend has no plans at present to meet representatives of the National Association of Rail Passengers.

Mr. Neubert: Can the Minister assure us that he understands that rail commuters, by and large, are not wealthy people with bottomless pockets? Is he aware that they have to pay higher fares with constricted incomes, on which they have been taxed? There is a special problem in commuter operations, because of the intensified use of rolling stock and of staff. As we are all workers now, if British Rail were to reintroduce a workers' fare would he support it, and will he institute a new Government campaign for staggering work hours?

Mr. Horam: We understand the problems of commuters and, with the squeeze on incomes in the last few years, that fares have gone up faster than retail prices and most other prices. That is the cause of the problem. I cannot undertake to give even more subsidies by way of a workers' fare, especially as we are all workers now, if that is what the hon. Member is suggesting. Nevertheless, we must look at the problems sympathetically.

Mr. Whitehead: In the context of the White Paper does my hon. Friend agree that much of the subsidy for commuters is another way of saying that we are paying money out there instead of constructing new urban motorways, which

would be needed if people could not travel by rail?

Mr. Horam: I agree, but my hon. Friend omits to mention the enormous environmental and social costs of motorways.

Mr. Bowden: Is the Minister aware that there is deep anger among members of the National Association of Rail Passengers at the refusal of his right hon. Friend to see them? Is he aware that these are people at the sharp end, travelling between London and their home town? Will the Minister undertake to think about the matter again and agree to meet a deputation led by hon. Members from both sides of the House?

Mr. Horam: I shall consider the hon. Member's suggestion. I understand that members of the association will be seeing the Chairman of British Rail before long. This is a matter for British Rail in the first instance, and under our present system that is the most appropriate way to proceed.

White Paper

Mr. Fry: asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to publish his transport White Paper; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Jessel: asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to publish his transport White Paper; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he is now able to give the precise date for the publication of the transport policy White Paper.

Mr. William Rodgers: About May.

Mr. Fry: I thank the Minister for that answer. In view of the importance of the White Paper and the normal problem of finding sufficient time to debate transport matters in the House, does he agree that there is a case for setting up a Select Committee on Transport? Would not that help to reassure the public on contentious matters, such as the national road programme and the level of support for public transport, and enable this matter to be fully discussed and investigated by Parliament?

Mr. Rodgers: My instinct is to say "Yes", because for a long time I have been a strong supporter of the workings of Select Committees. However, if I said "Yes" I might be unpopular with my colleagues, since I have not consulted them.

Mr. Jessel: Will the White Paper refer to road safety? If it does, will there be a reference to seat belts? Since, each week, 20 people are killed on the roads who would have survived had they been wearing seat belts, and since the House, on a free vote, supported the seat belts Bill by a majority of over 100, will the Minister take advantage of the reduced pressure on parliamentary time and reintroduce the Bill?

Mr. Rodgers: The White Paper will refer to seat belts and to road safety in general. I agree that a reference is not enough. The Government are committed to find time to reintroduce the seat belts Bill. However, the use of parliamentary time is not a matter for me, although the hon. Member may assume that the issue is very much in my mind.

Mr. Ioan Evans: In the first paragraph of the White Paper will my right hon. Friend give a definition of an integrated transport policy? Does he agree that we have an underused rail system and an overused road system? Is he aware that the Severn Bridge had to be closed because its fabric was being destroyed by juggernaut lorries? Surely the same must be happening on our roads in general.

Mr. Rodgers: My hon. Friend is wrong about the reason for the Severn Bridge being temporarily closed. I am hesitant to seek to define an integrated transport policy, in view of earlier exchanges. My hon. Friend makes an important point. The maximisation of resources, bearing in mind questions of costs, choice and need, is central to the White Paper.

Mr. Michael Latham: Will the White Paper cover the system of the tapering of bus fares in rural areas by the National Bus Company? Is the Minister aware that some of the fare increases for short journeys have infuriated my constituents?

Mr. Rodgers: I am not sure that it will go into that much detail, and some of these matters are really for the manage-

ment of the company or of the appropriate industry. But I am sure that the point put by the hon. Gentleman will be noted.

Mr. Hardy: Will the White Paper refer to inland waterways?

Mr. Rodgers: That is a very interesting question, to which I am not sure that I yet have the answer. But my guess is that there will be reference in it to them.

Mr. Marten: Before publishing the White Paper in May, will the right hon. Gentleman have a look at the licensing functions of the traffic commissioners, as set out in the Road Traffic Act 1960, particularly in view of the co-ordinating rôle that local authorities, particularly the county councils, now have under the Local Government Act 1972, as there is an awful muddle?

Mr. Rodgers: I think that there is a more specific reference to this matter in a later Question. However, this matter is in our minds, and it is an important question to be considered in the White Paper.

Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre

Mr. Arthur Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he is satisfied with the efficiency of the Swansea Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre.

Mr. Robert Cooke: asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he is satisfied with the efficiency of the Swansea Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre.

Mr. Horam: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Jones: That is an extraordinarily complacent reply. The hon. Gentleman must be aware, as the House is, of the very large number of complaints that we are getting, particularly about delays in the offices out there. Has he been able to satisfy himself about the causes of these delays? What steps are being taken to eliminate them? That is what we are interested in. Does the hon. Gentleman know what the defects are in the operation? Will he publish in the Official Report figures showing the levels of staff, part- and full-time, and the cost of the organisation?

Mr. Horam: I shall consider the hon. Gentleman's last request and see whether I can meet it, but I remind the House that the Automobile Association, which is not backward in the interests of motorists, has given the Swansea centre a pretty clean bill of health. There were initial problems, but the situation is improving. I was there recently and was impressed by the improved standards of efficiency.

Mr. Cooke: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many of us would regard the place at Swansea as a disaster area? Is he further aware that many of my constituents have found themselves in trouble with the police, as well as in trouble over hire purchase, and so on, and have suffered great personal inconvenience, because of the lack of activity at Swansea? The complacency of his reply is insufferable.

Mr. Horam: There was no complacency in my reply. I was impressed by the set-up. The situation has improved, and the fact that an independent body such as the AA can say so is clear evidence that the hon. Gentleman's remark that this is a disaster area is totally inaccurate. Vehicle licences are now turned round in two days flat, registration documents within eight or nine days, and driving licences within eight to nine days flat. That is extremely good going.

Mr. Spriggs: Is my hon. Friend aware that most of us on Labour Benches are disappointed with his reply? If he is satisfied with the Swansea centre, let me assure him that there are many thousands of constituents all over the country who are not. What is he going to do about it?

Mr. Horam: I am satisfied—

Mr. Spriggs: Then my hon. Friend should be ashamed of himself.

Mr. Horam: —and there is independent testimony to the fact—that the situation is improving at the centre. I have looked into it extensively, and I am confident that the staff are doing all they can. As my hon. Friend knows—and he should give them credit for it—they have set up special arrangements to deal with problems that occur, and these are dealt with quickly.

Mr. Peter Walker: Is the hon. Gentleman as satisfied as the Treasury that it

is sensible to continue with both the vehicle licence tax and the petrol tax? Would it not be a good idea to combine the two?

Mr. Horam: There is something to be said for that, but that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. Watt: As the Scotland and Wales Bill is in limbo, will the hon. Gentleman devolve responsibility for driver and motor vehicle licensing to Scotland, so that at least he may get that right?

Mr. Horam: I certainly would not wish to cast aspersions on the Welsh, to whom the centre was devolved for very good reasons. I am sure that to transfer it to Scotland would not meet with the approval of my colleagues.

Public Expenditure

Mr. Robert Rhodes James: asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will make a statement on the annual percentage growth of public expenditure on transport since 1973.

Mr. William Rodgers: Public expenditure on inland surface transport in Great Britain, excluding loans to nationalised industries, increased by 13 per cent. between 1973–74 and 1974–75 and by a further 1 per cent. in 1975–76. It has declined by about 3 per cent. in 1976–77.

Mr. Rhodes James: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, but is he aware that it is the massive switch since 1973 from investment to subsidy that has created such long-term problems in the economy of the nation? What is he going to do about it?

Mr. Rodgers: One of the problems in recent years is the consequences of the period when natural price increases were held back, in the early 1970s, but I acknowledge the point that if investment were to be neglected, and if revenue support were to be open-ended, we could not have improvements in the transport system. These matters will be discussed in the White Paper.

Mr. Bagier: Has my right hon. Friend had representations from British Railways about the investment programme? Are British Railways satisfied with it


since 1973, and even with the forward projections for the next three or four years?

Mr. Rodgers: I have had no specific representations from British Railways about the investment programme, but it is a matter that I discuss with them from time to time, and I was pleased to make a decision, in advance of the White Paper, some weeks ago to let the £80 million investment in the Bedford-St. Pancras line go ahead. But the level of investment is certainly central in considering the future of the railways.

Mr. Temple-Morris: May I support the point put earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) by putting to the right hon. Gentleman that one of the most effective ways of controlling and continually surveying public expenditure is by Select Committee of the House? I know the right hon. Gentleman's difficulties over this, but does he appreciate that there is much support for that proposition, or at least much thought about it on both sides of the House? Does he also appreciate that there is lack of debating time for transport matters and that a Select Committee would largely get over that fact, which is frequently used to criticise this House by various protest lobbies in transport?

Mr. Rodgers: I think that the hon. Gentleman is unwittingly confusing two possible functions for a Select Committee. There is the Select Committee on Expenditure, which has had a distinguished record since its establishment. It is open to the House to decide whether and in what way it might be used for some of the purposes that the hon. Gentleman has in mind.

British Railways (Accounts)

Mr. Stanbrook: asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will give a general direction to the Chairman of British Railways to provide accounts which show the costs of the different services properly apportioned.

Mr. William Rodgers: I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) on Monday.

Mr. Stanbrook: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that unless full financial

information and a total breakdown of costs are available, the British Railways management will not be able to do the job properly and public dissatisfaction will increase, because there will be no basis on which one can assess whether one is getting value for money? If the taxpayer is to foot the bill for British Railways, should their position not be fully itemised?

Mr. Rodgers: I have a great deal of sympathy with that view, but these matters have been discussed for over 30 years in the House and it is not easy to find a solution entirely satisfactory to everyone. The British Railways Board discussed this question in response to the consultation document, but it is difficult to find a method of apportionment that is wholly satisfactory and that would be endorsed by everyone. I am sure that the board will be anxious to publish as much information as it can, and I agree that it would help for the purposes of planning.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: If my right hon. Friend decides to do what is asked of him, will he, on grounds of consistency, look at the costings of different categories of road user, since it is generally accepted that private motorists cross-subsidise the commercial road users?

Mr. Rodgers: If it were within my power to do so I would succumb to my hon. Friend's suggestion, but, in replying on Monday to the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley), I made it clear that it would not be appropriate for me to give a statutory direction of the kind suggested.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that at a time when the House is discussing the provision of £45 million to British Railways for their freight deficit, some figures about the actual costs of those freight services should appear in their annual report?

Mr. Rodgers: These are matters which, having been discussed in the House, can be pursued in the Committee now sitting. I am not quarrelling with the argument that information should be made available if it is meaningful, but we should be aware of the problems of providing information which is not


meaningful and significant and which could mislead.

Mr. John Ellis: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, for example, when British Rail claims that a line is becoming increasingly uneconomic and the service to passengers on it is therefore liable to withdrawal, and one adduces the cost of track maintenance when it is found that the track is to remain open for freight, people are right to be suspicious that British Railways have perhaps first thought up the strategy and then produced figures that will support it?

Mr. Rodgers: I do not think that British Railways normally approach their problems in this way. My own view is that at every level in British Railways there is a tremendous commitment to the future of the railways. However, they have to do their work within the framework set by Parliament and within the resources available. If my hon. Friend has any specific instance in mind, I shall pass on the information. If that is done, I am sure that British Railways will have an answer.

Written-off Cars

Sir Bernard Braine: asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will seek powers to prevent cars written off by insurance companies going back on to the road without an inspection.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will seek powers to ensure that motor vehicles which have been written off by insurance companies are not put back on the road.

Mr. Horam: My right hon. Friend is studying the evidence that the hon. Members for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) and Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) recently put to him. We should be clear about the real extent of the problem before embarking on legislation for this purpose.

Sir B. Braine: That reply is most unsatisfactory. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that since the old system was ended in 1971, whereby insurers voluntarily informed licensing authorities of seriously damaged vehicles, no effective system of safeguarding the public interest has been introduced? Is it not clear that the Government must insist on obligatory testing

before 50,000 written-off vehicles are put back on the road? Has the hon. Gentleman begun his activities in this regard by discussing the matter with the British Insurance Association?

Mr. Horam: Indeed, and the British Insurance Association would not necessarily support the hon. Gentleman's arguments. More relevantly, we are having discussions with the Vehicle Builders and Repairers Association. We have begun our investigations in the interests of establishing whether, in practice, this is a serious cause of road accidents and whether we can do some statistical sample work to give us some greater evidence.

Mr. Tuck: Does my hon. Friend not feel that it is the Government's duty to avoid accidents and save lives by introducing legislation? Is he aware of the massive campaign in favour of that approach by the Evening Echo of Hemel Hempstead? Does he not feel that the sooner something is done the better?

Mr. Horam: I am delighted that the campaign has percolated even to Hemel Hempstead. I am glad to know that. I think that the Government should take every matter of road safety extremely seriously. Indeed, that is the approach that we take. The fact that we are looking into these matters carefully in view of the evidence given by the hon. Members for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) and Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) is an indication of that.

Mr. McCrindle: To revert to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine), is it not possible that in the immediate future the most likely remedial steps lie in an agreement between the British Insurance Association and the hon. Gentleman's Department? Why was the agreement dropped in 1971, in the first place?

Mr. Horam: It was dropped by the hon. Gentleman's Government because it was not thought to be an effective way of dealing with this problem. Further, there was no evidence at that time—there is still no evidence—that this was a serious cause of accidents. That is why we are looking at the problem again. Clearly, the Shadow Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield, has changed the Tories' tune on this issue.

Mr. loan Evans: Will my hon. Friend consider the matter again? We insist on a three-year car undergoing a test, yet a new car can be completely written off in a smash-up but can come back on the road without a test. Where is the logic in that?

Mr. Horam: As I have tried to make clear, new cars, imported cars, repaired cars or secondhand cars—indeed, all types of cars—can cause accidents if not properly maintained. The fact that there is a test at a certain time does not guarantee that the car is adequately maintained thereafter and will not cause an accident. We must be sure that the measures that we take—for example, the MOT test, or what is now proposed—are effective in preventing road accidents.

Mr. Norman Fowler: The Minister must recognise that this is not a matter of party politics. Is he aware of the mounting public concern that is shared by motoring and consumer protection organisations, and the demand for Government action? At the very least the Government should measure the size of the problem. Surely what is needed is a simple system of inspection before these cars return to the road. Will the hon. Gentleman show more urgency in tackling this matter than hitherto?

Mr. Horam: There is no question of a lack of urgency. It is necessary to establish the facts. As I have said, we are having discussions with the Vehicle Builders and Repairers Association, which has brought evidence to us. The Transport and Road Research Laboratory has been asked to examine these matters fully. We need statistical evidence that this is a significant cause of road accidents. Until we get that evidence it would be senseless to propose legislation having no proper basis.

Public Transport

Mr. George Rodgers: asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans for attracting an additional number of passengers to public transport.

Mr. William Rodgers: I am considering how best to ensure that public transport plays its proper part in the course of preparing my White Paper.

Mr. George Rodgers: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the most
 
effective ways of conserving energy supplies is the greater utilisation of public transport? With that in mind, will he set about reducing the cost of public transport?

Mr. William Rodgers: I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of public transport. I am glad to say that the resources devoted to it in recent years have been increased. The real problem is how we pay for improved public transport services. If they are not paid for by increased fares, which are unpopular, they must be paid for by taxation and rates, which are also unpopular. There is no easy way of providing a public transport system that does not make considerable demands, direct or indirect, upon those who enjoy its services.

Mr. Channon: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the large rise in fares in recent years has had a serious effect on many hundreds of thousands of people? Will he consider the experience of foreign countries in Europe and experience in the United States of America and Canada before coming forward with his White Paper? In many of those countries extra help is given to commuters in other ways.

Mr. William Rodgers: I shall consider overseas experience. However, we must face the facts. If fares are not to rise, services must be cut, or from taxation and rates there must be additional support for our public transport system. That means increases in public expenditure. We cannot have it both ways. That does not mean that public transport is not important. I recognise its importance and in my White Paper I shall be dealing with the issues that my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Rodgers) raised in his initial Question.

Mr. David Watkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the latest swingeing increase in bus fares, especially in the Northern Region, is one of the most major disincentives in the use of public transport yet devised?

Mr. William Rodgers: I am sympathetic to what my hon. Friend says. However, if fare increases are not to take place other services must be cut, and cut severely, or there must be additional allocation of resources in our public


expenditure totals at a time when, by common consent, there can be no increase in ceilings. If we are to spend more in subsidising buses and railways, however justified that may be, where are we to find the money to do so? Is it to be done by reducing provision for schools, house building and the Health Service? Where is the money to come from? It does not grow on trees.

Mr. Evelyn King: In seeking to attract custom, will the right hon. Gentleman get someone to look into the question of catering facilities on trains? Bearing in mind the services provided and the quality of what is sold, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is profiteering on a grosser scale than in any other method of selling food that I know?

Mr. William Rodgers: I have never seen, on the railways, profiteering of the sort that the hon. Gentleman describes. His experience is very different from mine. Considering the difficult circumstances, the railways now make available first-class food. However, this matter is wholly unrelated to the demands for public transport.

Mr. Clemitson: In view of my right hon. Friend's statement, is he not assuming that the elasticity of demand for transport is constant at every price range? May it not be true that we are now getting into price ranges where the demand for public transport is becoming more and more elastic?

Mr. William Rodgers: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, but I am not sure what conclusion he expects me to draw. It is true that public transport can price itself out of the market with fare increases. That is a grave risk. However, if fares are not to increase we must subsidise to a greater extent. I ask the House to face this reality. Where is the money to come from? Are other programmes to be cut for this purpose?

Mr. Townsend: Bearing in mind British Railways' old-fashioned approach to the carrying of cycles, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that they have not understood the advantages of the modern bicycle? Will the right hon. Gentleman have a word with British Railways and bring them up to date?

Mr. William Rodgers: I am sure that British Railways will note that point.

National Bus Company

Mr. Gow: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what is his latest estimate of the profit or loss which will be made by the National Bus Company during the current financial year.

Mr. William Rodgers: The Chairman of the National Bus Company has told me that he expects to announce a small profit of about £3 million on revenue account for 1976. A similar result is expected in 1977.

Mr. Gow: Has not the Secretary of State failed to answer the Question? That is so because he has given an answer dealing only with revenue account. Bearing in mind the loss of £19 million made by the NBC in 1975 and the 12 million made in 1974, what is the right hon. Gentleman's estimate of the profit or loss for the current year, based on the same criteria for accountancy?

Mr. William Rodgers: I am afraid that at this stage I have no information other than that which I have just given, but I wish the hon. Gentleman would be less grudging. I realise that he proposed a Bill to denationalise the National Bus Company in August and also that it was lost by a majority much larger than the difference between the two sides of the House.
The National Bus Company does an extremely good job in difficult circumstances. This relates to the previous questions. The NBC receives revenue support from the counties, but in 1976–77 it is likely to receive 20 per cent. less than its entitlement in terms of the allowance made to the counties in TSG for revenue support.

Mr. Stephen Ross: The Secretary of State has taken the words out of my mouth, and I agree that it ill becomes the House to continue to abuse the National Bus Company, which is fighting difficult problems. Should not some reassurance be given about its future by both sides of the House? The National Bus Company has devolved power throughout the country. Is that not an example to other parts of the transport services?

Mr. William Rodgers: I am sure that the NBC will appreciate the hon. Gentleman's kind and understanding remarks. It would be better if the House examined in more detail some of the problems faced by the NBC in its attempt to maintain services when the necessary revenue support, particularly in rural areas, is lacking.

Mr. George Rodgers: Does the Minister agree that while we refer to the National Bus Company as a national company, it is in fact a collection of private companies brought together? Is there not a great opportunity for greater public control of this form of transport?

Mr. William Rodgers: I agree with my hon. Friend's description of the origins of the National Bus Company. It has had a considerable task in developing a single company and, at the same time, allowing for local option and control. There are also problems in integrating the services of the NBC with those of municipal transport authorities. But here, again, progress is being made and there is scope for further useful developments.

Mr. Adley: The Minister said that this Question was related to the previous one. Is he aware that that is particularly so in relation to NBC and other buses running with many empty seats, especially during off-peak periods? Has the Minister yet discussed with NBC the sale, or other means of availability, of reduced fare concessions, or any of the other schemes that have been put to him as a means of increasing the revenue of NBC during off-peak services and assisting old-age pensioners and others without increasing public expenditure?

Mr. William Rodgers: I understand that the NBC is looking into some of these ideas, and it has my encouragement in doing so.

Motorways (Salting)

Mr. Hodgson: asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he is satisfied with the effectiveness of the present polices for salting motorways.

Mr. Horam: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Hodgson: Is the Minister aware that there is a considerable body of scientific opinion that says that the

amount of salt being applied to motorways exceeds the optimum by two to four times and that this is causing considerable environmental damage, because of the concentrations of salt in the surrounding run-off of the motorway? Is the Minister also aware that his Department has authorised the use of an anti-caking element in the salt, which allows a considerable amount of cyanide into the water culverts around motorways?

Mr. Horam: I was aware of some of those points. The hon. Gentleman obviously knows a great deal about the subject. I was not aware of his last point, but I shall look into it and write to him.

Mr. John Ellis: Does the Minister realise that there is evidence to suggest that when excessive amounts of salt are used it makes the surface dangerous? If the Minister really wants to save money throughout the country, he should note that there is a disparate programme being carried out and that in some areas salt is thrown down on the road in shovelfuls.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is giving advice when he ought to be asking a question.

Mr. Ellis: Does the Minister realise that those are the facts? Will he get the Road Research Laboratory to study the problem immediately, because this would save on the cost of salt, damage to vehicles and accidents?

Mr. Horam: I always welcome advice from my hon. Friend, especially when it is so extensive and forceful. If my hon. Friend has any evidence, perhaps from his own area, of salt being improperly spread, I shall look into it. My advice is that if salt is spread properly—and I concede that this begs the question asked by my hon. Friend—it results in a reduction in accidents.

Mr. Ron Lewis: Has the Minister any figures about the cost of maintaining roads arising from the use of salt during the past winter?

Mr. Horam: Approximately 50,000 tons of salt was spread on motorways in England in each of the last three years at an approximate cost in 1974 of £337,000, in 1975 £383,000 and in 1976 £400,000.

Rural Transport

Mr. Watkinson: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has received, as part of the consultations on transport policy on the provision of rural transport.

Mr. Charles Morrison: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has had about rural transport; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Horam: We have received many such representations in response to the consultation documents on the transport policy review.

Mr. Watkinson: Is the Minister aware that those on the Government side of the House who have rural constituencies welcome his decision to experiment with new forms of transport in rural areas, but does he appreciate that time is of the essence in this matter, as the problem is chronic? Will he give the House some information about how long the experiment will last and when he will be able to present recommendations to the House?

Mr. Horam: I certainly appreciate that time is of the essence. I strongly support my hon. Friend's view on that. The experiments are expected to run for 18 months, but we could obtain results on an interim basis, and they will be a basis for decision taking. However, we do not rely merely on experiments to lead us to conclusions. In the White Paper we are, in addition, looking at the whole matter of the traffic commissioners and licensing, and our conclusions will not necessarily rest on the results of the experiments.

Mr. Morrison: Why is it necessary to have experiments, since experience is self-evident and there has been only too much experience of the deteriorating state of rural transport? Is the Minister not in a position to draw conclusions here and now and take action, rather than spending time on experiments?

Mr. Horam: That is partly true. We can draw general conclusions from the experience of the last few years, but we are dealing with a situation of extraordinary fragility, and it has reached a stage where, if we arc not careful, we

could end up with a worse situation than that from which we started. However, in those rural areas where there is bad, or even no, public transport the experiments will be welcome.

Mr. Norman Fowler: The Opposition agreed to take the Second Reading of the Rural Transport Bill in Committee upstairs because of representations made to us about the pressure of business on the Floor of the House. As this is no longer one of the major problems faced by the Government, may we have an assurance that the Second Reading will take place on the Floor of the House, especially in view of the interest that has been expressed by my hon. Friends?

Mr. Horam: That is a question for the Leader of the House.

Rail and Bus Services

Mr. Cowans: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has received from the British Railways Board and the National Bus Company on the possible replacement of rail passenger services by bus services following the transport consultation document; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. William Rodgers: I have received no proposals, although the Railways Board developed ideas on these lines in its response to the consultation document published some months ago.

Mr. Cowans: Is the Minister aware of the less-than-perfect record of bus services that took over from rail services and, after a relatively short time, ceased to function, thus depriving poorer communities of any transport? Will the Minister, when considering these matters in future, look into the ability of the bus company to maintain a service, and do so before the rail service is stopped, the route demolished and a community deprived of all transport, because no rail services can then be brought back?

Mr. Rodgers: I am aware of that point. My hon. Friend is right in saying that there has been a less-than-perfect record on previous occasions. If we are to have any form of integrated transport system we must approach the matter in an open way, examining how we can best meet needs with the resources available. Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable that British Rail should discuss


these matters with the trade unions, if that is its wish and judgment.

Mr. Hal Miller: In connection with the representations made by the British Railways Board, will the right hon. Gentleman assure me and my constituents that we shall still be able to travel to Birmingham by express bus and that it will not be withdrawn at the request of the board, thereby involving us in more expense?

Mr. Rodgers: It is not for me to give assurances or not to give them. As I said earlier, I have received no representations of the sort implied in the initial Question. I think that the hon. Gentleman will understand the difficulties. Our discussions are of a very general sort and I cannot judge the outcome at this stage.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (COUNCIL OF MINISTERS' MEETING)

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Dr. David Owen): I will, with permission, make a statement on the meeting of the EEC Council of Ministers which took place yesterday, under my chairmanship.
I am glad to report that after a long discussion we were able to reach agreement on the main elements of an opening statement to be made by the presidency on behalf of the Community on the Common Fund negotiating conference which has just opened in Geneva. There was one point which was not completely resolved concerning aspects of commodity financing on which work will continue this week. It will also be necessary to develop and elaborate the Community's position in the course of the Common Fund conference. The Community has committed itself to working constructively for a productive outcome and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade made it clear that the United Kingdom would make a positive contribution and would welcome discussion on all aspects of the question.
We discussed the detailed preparation for the next meeting of the European Council in Rome on 25th and 26th March. We discussed also representation at the forthcoming summit conference to be held

in London on 7th and 8th May. Differing views were expressed on whether the Community should be represented. No consensus emerged and some member States indicated they would raise the issue at the European Council.
We heard a progress report on negotiations with third countries on fisheries questions. These are on the whole moving ahead satisfactorily, but my hon. Friend underlined the importance which the United Kingdom attaches to a resumption of British fishing off Iceland and it was agreed that the Commission would consult urgently with the Permanent Representatives' Committee on how to take this forward. It was also agreed that work should be pressed ahead on the reform of the Community's internal fisheries regime in the high-level official group which is meeting for the first time today and in the Agriculture Council.
We discussed the adaptation of the 1970 agreement between the Community and Spain to take account of the accession of the United Kingdom and other new members in 1973 and agreed that the Council would return to this issue at its next meeting on 5th April.
The Council agreed that the work in hand on a mandate for negotiation of a second stage agreement with Cyprus should be continued with a view to finalising it at the next Council.
A large measure of agreement was also reached on the Community's handling of the GATT negotiations on the renewal of the Multifibre Arrangement. Work will continue at official level on the outstanding issues in time for discussion in the GATT textiles committee in Geneva.

Mr. John Davies: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his statement and for keeping up the good habit of making brief statements soon after the Council meetings have taken place. In relation to his observations about the summit meeting and further discussion of the matter at the European Council, is he aware that we hope that he means that the Council, of which he is President, and the Council of Ministers will be exercising their authority to secure representation of the Community at the summit meeting, bearing in mind that particularly the smaller countries in the Community have long looked to Britain to


seek to help them in having their view adequately expressed in these international arrangements?
The right hon. Gentleman in his reference to fisheries said that these matters were moving ahead satisfactorily, but do not the Icelandic discussions seem to be bogged down? Can he give some reassurance to the many interests which are concerned about the lack of news of any progress in these negotiations?
The right hon. Gentleman has a particular concern with the problems of Cyprus, so did he make clear to his colleagues how vital it is to the achievement of reconciliation in that island that arrangements between it and the Community should be intensified and made more effective in view of the immense importance of maintaining the island's economy in order to bring about the necessary reconciliation?
On the Multifibre Arrangement, can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that the point is well taken that, against a background of recession in the industry, the automatic quota growth envisaged in the arrangement is unacceptable for the future and that any review of the arrangement must bring about some relationship of quotas to the state of the industry from time to time?
There was no mention of Concorde in the right hon. Gentleman's statement. Did he raise this with his colleagues and point out to them that any adverse decision on Concorde and New York might have the most serious effects for the longterm interests of the European aerospace industry and that, although it might be in the very short-term interests of the United States industry, it could not be in its long-term interests? Did the right hon. Gentleman make these points in view of his imminent departure to Washington?

Dr. Owen: On the summit, the presidency has sought to forge a consensus. I attempted to do that at yesterday's meeting. Our view has always been that we would go along with a consensus, but it did not emerge. It could be put on the agenda—it is open to any member Government to do that—but formal items on the agenda are usually agreed. This subject was discussed, but there was no agreement on it, although some States

made clear that it would be discussed at the Rome meeting.
I agree that "bogged down" is a fair description of the Icelandic negotiations. There has been no progress. My hon. Friend made clear to the Commission and the Council that we were extremely concerned about this matter. We have been promised a further report from Commissioner Gundelach. It is extremely important in view of the whole question of cod and any argument on quotas for demersal fish.
There was agreement on Cyprus. This has been discussed in the Political Committee and it is recognised on all sides that whatever view is taken, whether by the Turkish Cypriots or by the Greek Cypriots, it is in the interests of all communities and of Cyprus as a whole that the economy should go forward.
I can confirm that the MFA is one of the issues which are outstanding and on which there is concern among member States. Further work is needed if we are to reach a common Community position by 16th March.
Concorde was not discussed at the Council, but I raised it in bilateral discussions when I visited Paris a week ago.

Mr. Thorpe: Who will take the final decision on whether the Community will be represented at the summit? Will it be the European Council? What view did the Government take? Did they take the view that since there are matters which will affect the Community as a whole, it would be an intolerable setback to the authority of the Community if its President were not present at the summit?
We hope that the Common Fund negotiations in Paris will have a successful outcome. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Government's view should be that stability in raw materials is in the interests as much of consuming countries as of exporting countries and that this is the best way of redistributing wealth between developing and developed countries?

Dr. Owen: The Government's view on the summit is clear. If a consensus had emerged in favour of the representation of the Commission, we would have been in favour of it. Unfortunately that did not emerge. On the question of decision making, it has been a convention that the


European Council is not a formal decision-making body. It produces general orientations for the Council of Foreign Ministers, which is the decision-making body. It would have been possible for a decision to be taken by the European Council if, when the matter was discussed, a consensus emerged. However, no consensus emerged and without that there could be no agreement and therefore no decision was taken. Our position as hosts to the summit was that we would invite whatever representation was agreed by the Council of Ministers. As there was no agreement, we cannot invite anyone. It is not within our gift to determine this matter. We are only one of nine States which have to decide on representation.
On the Common Fund meeting in Geneva, the right hon. Gentleman puts a sound argument, but the question is about objectives and the means of achieving them and how, in some circumstances, they could benefit both the developing and the developed world. But in some circumstances it would be extremely expensive and not helpful to some of the poorest countries. We have expressed a readiness to explore all the issues in a constructive spirit, trying to achieve a solution to a difficult problem. But this is an important area.

Mr. Roper: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on having led the Council of Ministers to such a constructive decision on the Common Fund. However, will he say a little more about what is meant by the phrase that he used, that the Government would
work constructively for a productive outcome
in the negotiations in Geneva? In particular, will he say at what level the further discussions to which he referred will take place and whether it will be necessary to have another meeting of the Council of Ministers before a final Community position is agreed?

Dr. Owen: The further discussions that I have mentioned relate to a small part of the document, but an important part, since they relate to financial arrangements. This will be pursued in the permanent representatives' meeting, I think on Thursday, where I hope it will be possible to get agreement. But

there are further meetings relating to preparation for the CIEC conference in Paris, and it will be possible to discuss the whole position on the Common Fund in the negotiations. There will be an evolution of positions. We need to look at the relationship of the Common Fund to some important aspects under discussion in the CIEC—the whole question of debt financing arrangements and other things.
What is important is to make some movement in the whole area of the North-South dialogue. The Common Fund has been isolated as one of the issues, but it has held up progress. We have not been able to get a Community position on the Common Fund, although that was advanced when we were getting very close to getting one yesterday.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: On the fishery negotiations, will the right hon. Gentleman comment on the negotiations with Russia, and particularly the reports that there have been certain procedural difficulties over getting an agreement? It would be a pity if progress made so far were to be hindered on procedural grounds now.
Secondly, what progress does the right hon. Gentleman now envisage for the working out of the internal regime of the EEC? What discussions is he having with the Eire Government in relation to the rather interesting proposals that they have put forward?

Dr. Owen: Taking the last part of the question first, we have had very close contact with the Irish Government throughout the negotiations, because to a great extent we have a common interest in these aspects. Their position and their proposals are under discussion in the Community at present. Of course, there are strong feelings among some member States that they are discriminatory, but the Irish Government are putting them forward to protect their coastal industry, and their interest in this is very close to ours.
It is true that there are procedural difficulties over the Russian negotiations. We have made considerable progress in dealing with January, February and March. There are quite big issues of recognition and the relationship of the


Soviet Union to the Community. I am not unhopeful that we shall make progress. I had a brief meeting myself with Minister Ishkov yesterday in Brussels.

Mr. Watt: How are the negotiations with Norway proceeding? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that no internal fisheries regime can be worked out until such time as we know what tonnage of fish is to be available in Norwegian waters? On the wider aspects, does he not agree that so long as the common agricultural policy is allowed to take up a disproportionate amount of the Community budget, we shall never be able to get on with worthwhile projects? Does he not agree that the sooner the CAP is disbanded and member nations are allowed to work out their own food and agricultural policies, the better?

Dr. Owen: On the last point, the Government have never made any secret of the fact that they think that there need to be substantial changes in the CAP. We have worked for that with some success over the last few years. We hope to build on that success.
Concerning Norway, there is no doubt that we cannot have an internal regime until we can get some agreement on quotas. There are still arguments on the technical quotas of fish that would be available in our waters. These negotiations are taking time, although they are being conducted in a very friendly spirit. At present there is no difficulty in extending arrangements while we forge agreement with the Norwegian Government. But this is a relationship between the Community and the Norwegian Government.

Mr. Bryan Davies: While welcoming the progress outlined on the Common Fund, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he could go some way to correct the impression that the British Government intended to lead on these negotiations rather than be in the rear? Would not the situation be improved if a more positive statement were made by the British Government welcoming the concept of the Common Fund?

Dr. Owen: I think that we made a very positive contribution in the debate. Without going into all the positions of the different member States, let me say

that the presidency was cast in the rôle of trying to bring together two fairly substantially differing views. We were able to do that. The British Government had no difficulty in going along with what was initially the presidency draft on which we forged this. Therefore, it would be wrong to say that we are in the rear on this. I would not say that we were in the lead, because I think that there are serious issues which involve the future of the poorest countries in the world, and, badly introduced, a Common Fund could be damaging to their interests. We are prepared to look at this serious issue—it is serious—in a spirit of trying to reach a productive agreement.

Mr. Farr: Was there any discussion at the meeting of the situation in Romania? In particular, has the EEC decided to offer support in any way?
Was discussion entered into about the manner in which policing of the 200-mile exclusive fishing zone will be arranged?

Dr. Owen: No discussion took place about Romania, although we discussed some aspects of Yugoslavian policy. We did not discuss the earthquake problem. That is currently a matter for individual member States to respond to. As the House knows, I made an announcement yesterday concerning the British response.
The policing of the 200-mile limit is a national governmental responsibility. We have always held the view that conservation is an issue for the national Governments, and there the Government's policy has been held. There are some member States with small navies and limited resources. We may need to go into some discussion about policing for them. We consider our own 200-mile zone to be the, British Government's responsibility and we intend to carry out that responsibility.

Mr. Skinner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is no surprise to many of us on the Labour Benches that the Common Market Ministers will not agree to sending someone to represent the whole Community at the summit? We have always believed that national interests will be served over and above those of the Community, so why spend much-needed taxpayers' money on direct elections to prop up such a phoney alliance?
As for Concorde, why do the Germans, the Belgians, the Italians and all the


others not buy it? Who needs enemies with friends like those?

Dr. Owen: I shall not follow my hon. Friend into the labyrinths of the support for Concorde. What is at issue there is its range. It is not an intra-European aeroplane. It is basically an aeroplane for going either, as operated by the French, to Brazil, or across the North Atlantic on fairly major journeys.
Concerning Common Market agreement and taking a national position, if one believes in federalism—which I do not—one tends to believe that there should be no national interest. But it has long been the view of many hon. Members on both sides of the House who believe in the idea of Britain being a member of the Community that it is still possible to have a strong national sense within the European Community. That is certainly my position and I would uphold it. I believe the primacy of the Council of Ministers has rightly been upheld, and that is why I believe that if one holds direct elections, for example, under the Treaty of Rome, for the European Parliament, they will not undermine the primacy of the Council of Ministers, nor, in fact, effectively subtract in any way from the powers of the Council of Ministers.

Mr. Blaker: Has the Council of Ministers recently had any discussions about improving the methods of concerting foreign policy? Will the Foreign Secretary say what his own position is on this matter? Does he attach a high priority to that objective, and is he satisfied with the progress being made?

Dr. Owen: Yes, I am satisfied. I think it could be better. But, as I said in my speech during the foreign affairs debate, the Community has acted as one on over 80 per cent. of the resolutions in the United Nations. That is a significant improvement and is a major yardstick of our achieving, so far as one can, an integrated common view on foreign policy issues.
The political co-operation machinery, which is fairly new, has been working actively. We are currently discussing many issues such as Cyprus, the Middle East and the whole complex of problems in the Mediterranean area with a great

deal of identity of view. We shall continue to try to bring about a common position among the nine member States.

Mr. Spearing: My right hon. Friend said that the United Kingdom agrees with the objectives of the Common Fund, namely, more stable prices for producer and consumer nations and fairer prices for the producers. Can he say whether all the members of the EEC agreed with his objective for common funding through international financial means of individual commodity agreements, which will lead to the same results?

Dr. Owen: It would be true to say that as a result of the meeting yesterday all the member States agreed with the objectives of stability of prices. It is not true to say that there is agreement that the only vehicle towards that is a common fund as we see it. Certainly one member State is interested in a widening of the Stabex system and sees that making a contribution. What has emerged is a readiness among all member States to look at the concrete proposals, and to study them commodity by commodity, while at the same time recognising the strong views held on this issue by the developing countries.

Mr. Rifkind: Can the right hon Gentleman indicate whether there was any discussion about protecting European firms from the Arab boycott office? If there was not, will the Secretary of State undertake to raise this matter subsequently?

Dr. Owen: I do not mind looking at this point. It was not discussed at this meeting. It would probably have been discussed initially under the political cooperation machinery and not in the Council. It is one of the issues that cut across political co-operation and involve trade matters for the Council. It may well come up.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: I shall undertake to call those hon. Members who have already been on their feet. As the House knows, I am jealous of the rights of the House to question the Minister on European matters, but I do not propose to call any other hon. Member who jumps to his feet after this.

Mr. James Johnson: In the light of the discussions with other EEC Ministers, both public and private and formal and informal, may I ask my right hon. Friend a constituency question? Can he give any indication about the likelihood of a settlement with Iceland over our fishing dispute? As my right hon. Friend knows, this is vital to Humberside.

Dr. Owen: I well recognise that this is vital. That was one of the reasons why the United Kingdom delegate devoted most of his speech on fishing to the whole question of Iceland and its effect. The situation is that the Icelandic Government told the Commission and the Community, through Commissioner Gunderlach, that they had not refused to negotiate some form of arrangement but wished to have further time to consider the matter. It was hoped that a reply would come back to us by January or early February. We are now in March and we have had no reply. The situation is now getting to be intolerable.

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: What discussions were held about preventing the export of cheap butter to third countries? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the people of this country are fed up with the idea of selling butter at 162p per lb. to the Russians while they themselves have to pay nearly 60p per lb?

Dr. Owen: I am well aware of the strong feeling, which I share. I spoke about this in the House during the foreign affairs debate. This matter will have to be discussed by the Agriculture Council. But it did not come up in the Foreign Affairs Council. I gather that it is being discusssed today in the European Parliament.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: Was there any discussion about the practice of keeping the price of milk artificially high in the Community and elsewhere? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the maintaining of high prices can cause some countries to produce milk in excess of their requirements, thus prejudicing their production of grain, which is most essential to them?

Dr. Owen: This is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture. I know that he is concerned about this. Of course, that has been the tradition for many years in this country.

In fact it was part of the 1947 agricultural legislation that we would intervene on market prices, and that we would not have a completely free market in agriculture. That has been a basic agreement on both sides of the House. Some intervention gives stability to the farmers planning forward. We have to look at this in the round. There have been advantages in having interventions, but what is wrong is when we get substantial surpluses year after year and then price increases on the existing surplus commodities. That is what has caused concern.

Mr. Marten: If the summit meeting is genuinely supposed to be a meeting of Heads of Government, would it not be a slight mistake to dilute it by having the President of the Commission there who is the head of a Civil Service apparatchik? Cannot our Prime Minister, who is the head boy of the Community, represent the Community perfectly well?

Dr. Owen: It does not come as any major surprise to me that the hon. Gentleman takes that view.

Mr. Loyden: May I bring my right hon. Friend back to the question of Romania? Would he not agree that his not inconsiderable influence in Europe ought to be used to ensure that the greatest efforts are made by Europe because of the political implications of such aid being made available?

Dr. Owen: I share my hon. Friend's concern. All the reports show that this has been a tragedy. We should give every help that we can. We have already expressed our willingness and concrete support with medical aid and in other areas. If there is any way in which the Community can help in the rebuilding of Romania's economy, we shall certainly look at this. We attach a great deal of importance to establishing relations with Eastern European countries. In particular, we have attached importance to our relations with Yugoslavia. Discussions are also going on about the relationship between the COMECON countries and the European Community. I hope that we shall be able to make progress in this matter.

Mr. Channon: Did the subject of direct elections to the European Parliament come up at the meeting? If so, and in spite of meetings that were held this week, will the Foreign Secretary reaffirm the Government's firm intention of bringing the necessary legislation before Parliament so that Britain's commitment to this can be met?

Dr. Owen: No, it did not come up. There is nothing I can add to what I have already said in this House.

Mr. Adley: Does the Foreign Secretary accept the simple proposition that the inability to land Concorde at New York will be harmful to the project and will damage the European aerospace manufacturers, and that the only people who would gain from this would be the United States aircraft manufacturers?

Dr. Owen: There is no more eloquent testimony to what I think about Concorde and its attributes, and why it should be flown into all the major airports of the United States, than the fact that in a few hours' time, along with the Prime Minister, I shall be taking off in Concorde and flying into Washington.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 25TH MARCH

Members successful in the Ballot were:

Mr. Peter Mills.
Mr. Gould.
Mr. Arthur Jones.

BILL PRESENTED

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE

Mr. Secretary Rees, supported by Mr. Secretary Mason, Mr. Secretary Millan, and Mr. Brynmor John, presented a Bill to increase the limits on candidates' election expenses at local government elections in the United Kingdom: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow [Bill 82].

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Ordered,
That the draft County Courts Jurisdiction Order 1977 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Ashton]

CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF LONDON (ABOLITION)

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Bryan Davies: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to abolish the Corporation of the City of London as a local government unit and to provide for its resources and functions to be divided between adjacent boroughs; and for purposes therewith.
I think that hon. Members will recognise that the Corporation of the City of London has a long and distinguished history. Its charter was granted by William the Conqueror and was reinforced after the challenge to King John. One should recognise that at that time the City succeeded in winning rights in defence of the liberties of the individual against the threatened tyranny of the monarchs. It defended those rights in the seventeenth century when it firmly placed itself on the side of Parliament against the early Stuarts.
Why, therefore, should a modern Parliament look at the City of London with a view to its abolition? I maintain it is because the City no longer represents the defence of democratic rights but has hardened into a bastion of privilege in our community.
Despite the fact that London has grown to 7 million inhabitants and represents a substantial proportion of the total population of the United Kingdom and a substantial proportion of its wealth, it is still represented to the outside world by a closed and privileged corporation. The Lord Mayor of London stands at the heart of a system which allows a narrow elite to dominate certain aspects of the affairs of London. That system has made absolutely no concession to modern democracy. While Parliament has been reformed during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries and while local government reform has proceeded over a period, the City has been passed by. Therefore, we now have a situation where the reek of the rotten borough and the smell of patronage still rises in London. The arguments of those who are hostile to reform are as invalid as those who resisted the reform of Parliament before 1832.
The franchise of the City of London is based not upon rights enjoyed by its 7 million inhabitants but upon the narrow rights of 13,000 people. That in itself would be absurd enough, but of those 13,000 only 5,000 are residents of the City. The remainder qualify under the property and business qualification which was abolished in the rest of the country in 1969. Nor does the business franchise extend to the almost half-million Londoners who work in the City each day.
To be elected to the Common Council one has to be a freeman of the City. The vast majority are livery men—people represented by the great guilds. In more democratic days the great guilds of the City of London were representative of ordinary working men. That is not so now. For example, the Drapers' Guild now consists of eight banisters, 19 solicitors, 10 chartered accountants, 17 stockbrokers, six company directors, five clergymen, a university professor, 12 Army officers, nine civil servants and, of course, sundry other members of professions and business.
Moreover, not only is the franchise and the qualification to become a councillor of the Common Council restricted, but the wards themselves are historic relics. Two-thirds of the residential voters return only one-eighth of the councillors. One-third of the Common Council is elected by only 150 residents. In three wards the councillors outnumber the electorate.
Beyond the council is the important group of aldermen. Those gentlemen, unlike their counterparts in other local government areas, are elected for life. Nor is there any proposition that that privilege should be abolished. They have considerable control over entry to their own ranks, and they have discharged that power in a particularly arbitrary and reactionary way in the most recent past. Hon. Members will recall the exercise of that power in 1974, lest at that time a woman should be admitted to the ranks of aldermen. Access to the rank of alderman is more like access to the London clubs, to which the vast majority of them belong.
From the ranks of aldermen emerge the Lord Mayors—pillars of the London business establishment, although from


time to time some of them display a somewhat brittle base. Their entry into office reflects considerable private funds. It is as well that they have those private funds, because it is estimated that the cost in personal terms of being Lord Mayor of London under this arrangement amounts to as much as £100,000 a year.
However, hon. Members will recognise that the City of London is not entirely bereft of resources. Its ratable value represents 10 per cent. of the GLC area. If the City had been levying rates in recent years comparable with those in Southwark and Tower Hamlets, its neighbouring but poverty-stricken boroughs, it would have produced an extra £14·3 million. It is an island of wealth in a sea of poverty, and that sea of poverty reflects the inner city blight to which many of its surrounding boroughs are inevitably subject. It is in order to aid the problems of Southwark and Bermondsey and other closely adjoining boroughs that I seek to ensure that the rateable value of the City of London is redistributed among those boroughs.
What is more, the rateable value is not the end of the City's wealth. There is also a fund called the City Cach—an unmeasured proportion of wealth, because records are apparently not available to public scrutiny or examination. That wealth is kept for good causes and charities. Of course "charities" tends to be a somewhat elastic term. It certainly includes a public school in London. Ratepayers cannot exercise control over the fund.
Finally, I come to the question of the City of London in terms of its ceremonial rôle. I believe that a more reoalistic assessment was provided by Henry V just before Agincourt when he said:
And what art thou, thou idol ceremony?
What kind of god art thou…
What are thy rents? what are thy comings-in?
I accept that ceremony brings innocent pleasure to the citizens of London and further afield—a splash of colour in a drab world. But why should ceremony be associated only with the square mile of the City? Why should it not be associated with the elected head of London government, such as the chairman of the GLC? Should hon. Members opposite find that a difficult proposition

to accept, they will be consoled by the fact that this year the chairman is a hereditary peer. At least, it might be possible, under such an arrangement, for the great dinners at which Prime Ministers and notable politicians make their speeches to the nation, often asking for self-restraint, to be addressed to a representative cross-section of London life rather than merely to representatives of finance capital.
I recognise that this is not a wholly uncontentious measure. I recognise that there may be criticism on the ground that the City should remain as an anomaly—that the traditional defence of undemocratic privilege should remain. I maintain that that defence was put up 150 years ago to try to prevent democratic development in this House.
It could be argued that the City's contribution to the nation's wealth might be damaged. I do not think that the men of finance capital in the City are particularly persons of sentiment given to tremendous respect for privilege and historic tradition. What is more, I am not sure whether their contribution should be put on the credit or debit side of our national accounts. For example, the Hudson Institute indicated that the rôle of the City seems to have had disastrous effects on the British economy. Be that as it may, I do not think that this Bill at this time would in any way affect the rôle of the City in terms of its financial position. I leave that to the Commission under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson).
It is clear that the PR men and the business community have been only too forthright in their criticism of the City of London for its lethargy, stubbornness, pomposity and arrogance. A recent report has been suppressed for criticising the City of London for being representative of too many geriatrics and hard-core reactionaries who seek to sabotage progress.
If I may deal with the subject of ceremony, I believe that it should be linked to the democratic reality of life in London in the same way as the traditional ceremonies of this House are related to the active working of our democracy.
It may strike the House as odd to realise that the legend of Dick Whittington rising to become Lord Mayor of London is infinitely less likely to occur today than in medieval times. I want to see the office of this first citizen of our great capital city, one of the glories of the Western world, firmly anchored in the bedrock of democracy by being an office created by the votes of 7 million Londoners. I would have regarded that as an unexceptionable sentiment, and I confidently predict that all Members of radical mind will support the introduction of this Bill.

4.12 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: I wish to oppose this measure for four reasons. The first is that my hon. Friend the Member for the City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) has not yet made his maiden speech. Clearly he would have made the speech I am about to make it it were not such a controversial one. I am proud to stand in for him. Secondly, I oppose the Bill because it is a foolish idea. Thirdly, I oppose it because I am a Londoner and I went to the City of London School. Fourthly, I am against the Bill because I am a freeman of the City, as are the right hon. Members for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) and Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Mabon) and many others. It is a privilege that is treasured by many in the City.
My arguments are based on the following facts. First, the proposal is spiteful and politically motivated. Secondly, the proposal would substitute a politically-biased civic head of London for an internationally respected Lord Mayor who is above partisan politics. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I have only to instance Lord Mais, a member of the Labour Party. Thirdly, I believe that the proposal would claw into the GLC or some other spendthrift Labour borough the wealth of the City and squander it, instead of the present system whereby the City pays a vast sum to the rest of London and in addition pays—without any call on the rates—for the rebuilding of structures such as the new London Bridge. That money comes out of City cash. If that job were undertaken by the Department of Transport, it would probably cost twice as much.
Fourthly, the proposal would give Tammany Hall rule to the City. Fifthly, the City was examined only 15 years ago by a commission and was confirmed by a modern Parliament—not by a process undertaken centuries ago, as the hon. Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Davies) appeared to suggest.
If it is suggested that the City does nothing for charity, I must point out that City money goes to the upkeep of Epping Forest, Burnham Beeches, Highgate Woods, West Ham Park and other public amenities, at no cost to the London ratepayers. One must seek to contrast that with the cost of the GLC parks as borne by London ratepayers. City money also maintains the Guildhall School of Music and Drama, again at no cost to rates or taxes—unlike any other music or drama school in the nation.
The cost of the mayoralty and hospitality to overseas visitors is paid for by the City, again at no cost to London ratepayers. That is quite unlike the bun-fight which ILEA has arranged tonight, at ratepayers' expense, to celebrate the abolition of grammar schools.
The GLC rate needs to be examined because the costs of the GLC are increasing and in the past few years expenditure has been three times greater than that of the City. The Greater London Council rate under Labour has increased by 235 per cent. in three years—not a record to inflict on the City.
The whole argument advanced by the hon. Gentleman is based on a phoney, fraudulent and loaded London Labour Party report, but the facts are entirely different. The City is efficient. It was the first authority to become a complete smokeless zone. The City has voluntarily built, outside London boundaries, over 2,200 dwellings to let to people on council waiting lists. The City police have halved the number of street accidents in the last nine years, even in crowded streets. What other police force can claim such a record? Furthermore, the City pays its fair share—and more—to common London services.
To sum up the reasons against the proposals, I believe that the City has been a bastion of liberty in British history. It is highly efficient in organisation and the financial world places confidence in the City's non-political stance.


The Tammany Hall squalor exposed by what the GLC has done about the single homeless of London is nothing I want to see inflicted either on the rest of London or on some of the Labour boroughs which might be given the spoils.
The Greater London Council and the Labour Party should be thinking of the television programme last night and should be cringeing in dismay at their heartless inefficiency and absolute

arrogance in claiming any semblance of efficiency. The City should not be abolished to suit the jealous little men of the Far Left.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at the commencement of Public Business):—

The House divided: Ayes 157, Noes 198.

Division No. 85.]
AYES
[4.16 p.m.


Anderson, Donald
Forrester, John
Parker, John


Archer, Peter
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Parry, Robert


Armstrong, Ernest
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Pavitt, Laurie


Ashton, Joe
George, Bruce
Phipps, Dr Colin


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Gilbert, Dr John
Radice, Giles


Atkinson, Norman
Ginsburg, David
Richardson, Miss Jo


Bates, Alf
Golding, John
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Gould, Bryan
Roderick, Caerwyn


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Graham, Ted
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Rooker, J. W.


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Grant, John (Islington C)
Roper, John


Buchan, Norman
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Rose, Paul B.


Buchanan, Richard
Hardy, Peter
Ross, Rt Hon W.(Kilmarnock)


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Harper, Joseph
Ryman, John


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Sandelson, Neville


Cant, R. B.
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Sedgemore, Brian


Carmichael, Neil
Heffer, Eric S.
Selby, Harry


Cartwright, John
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Sillars, James


Clemitson, Ivor
Hunter, Adam
Silverman, Julius


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Skinner, Dennis


Cohen, Stanley
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Small, William


Coleman, Donald
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Snape, Peter


Conlan, Bernard
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Spriggs, Leslie


Corbett, Robin
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Stallard, A. W.


Cowans, Harry
Judd, Frank
Stewart, Rt Hon M.(Fulham)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Kaufman, Gerald
Stoddart, David


Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)
Kerr, Russell
Stott, Roger


Crawford, Douglas
Kinnock, Neil
Strang, Gavin


Cronin, John
Lamborn, Harry
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Lamond, James
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Cryer, Bob
Latham, Arthur (Paddinglon)
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Lipton, Marcus
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Davies Ifor (Gower)
Litterick, Tom
Tierney, Sydney


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Loyden, Eddie
Tinn, James


Deakins, Eric
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Tuck, Rapheal


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Dempsey, James
McCartney, Hugh
Ward, Michael


Doig, peter
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Watkins, David


Dormand, J. D.
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Watkinson, John


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
McNamara, Kevin
Watt, Hamish


Dunn, James A.
Madden, Max
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Eadie, Alex
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Whitehead, Phillip


Edge, Geoff
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Maynard, Miss John
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


English, Michael
Meacher, Michael
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Ennals, David
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Woodall, Alec


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Mendelson, John
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Moonman, Eric
Young, David (Bolton E)


Ewing, Harry (Stirlling)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)



Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Noble, Mike
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Mr. Arnold Shaw and


Flannery, Martin
Padley, Walter
Mr. Bruce Grocott.


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Park, George





NOES


Adley, Robert
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Bottomley, Peter


Alison, Michael
Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)


Arnold, Tom
Benyon, W.
Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Berry, Hon Anthony
Braine, Sir Bernard


Baker, Kenneth
Biffen, John
Brittan, Leon


Banks, Robert
Biggs-Davison, John
Brocklebank-Fowler, C.


Beith, A. J.
Blaker, Peter
Brotherton, Michael


Bell, Ronald
Boscawen, Hon Robert
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)




Bryan, Sir Paul
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Penhaligon, David


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Howell, David (Guildford)
Peyton, Rt. Hon John


Bulmer, Esmond
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Prior, Rt Hon Francis


Channon, Paul
Hunt, John (Bromley)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Churchill, W. S.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rathbone, Tim


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Johnson Smith, G. (E grinstead)
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Cope, John
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Cormack, Patrick
Jopling, Michael
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Costain, A. P.
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)
Kimball, Marcus
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Crouch, David
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Ridsdale, Julian


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Rifkind, Malcolm


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Knight, Mrs Jill
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Knox, David
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Lamont, Norman
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Dunlop, John
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Royle, Sir Anthony


Dykes, Hugh
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Sainsbury, Tim


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Lawrence, Ivan
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Elliott, Sir William
Lawson, Nigel
Scott, Nicholas


Eyre, Reginald
Le Marchant, Spencer
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Shersby, Michael


Farr, John
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Silvester, Fred


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Loveridge, John
Sims, Roger


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Luce, Richard
Sinclair, Sir George


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Skeet, T.H.H.


Forman, Nigel
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Spence, John


Fox, Marcus
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Sproat, Iain


Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Madel, David
Stainton, Keith


Freud, Clement
Marten, Neil
Stanbrook, Ivor


Fry, Peter
Mather, Carol
Stanley, John


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Maude, Angus
Steel, Rt Hon David


Gardner, Edward (S. Fylde)
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Steward, Ian (Hitchin)


Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stokes, John


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stradling Thomas, J.


Goodhart, Phillip
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Goodhew, Victor
Mills, Peter
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Miscampbell, Norman
Tebbit, Norman


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Gray, Hamish
Moate, Roger
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Grieve, Percy
Monro, Hector
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Townsend, Cyrill D.


Grist, Ian
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Grylls, Michael
Morgan, Geraint
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Hall, Sir John
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Wakeham, John


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Wall, Patrick


Hampson, Dr Keith
Neave, Airey
Weatherill, Bernard


Hannam, John
Neubert, Michael
Wells, John


Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Nott, John
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Hastings, Stephen
Onslow, Cranley
Wiggin, Jerry


Havers, Sir Michael
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Winterton, Nicholas


Hawkins, Paul
Page, John (Harrow West)
Yong, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Hayhoe, Barney
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Younger, Hon George


Hicks, Robert
Page, Richard (Workington)



Hadgson, Robin
Pardoe, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Holland, Phillip
Parkinson, Cecil
Mr. Anthony Grant and


Hooson, Emlyn
Pattie, Geoffrey
Mr. Peter Brooke.


Hordern, Peter

Question accordingly negatived.

Orders of the Day — JOB RELEASE BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. OSCAR MURTON in the Chair]

Clause 1

FINANCIAL AUTHORISATION ETC.

4.28 p.m.

The Chairman: Before I call Government Amendments Nos. 1 and 2, which have been selected for discussion together, I understand that it would be convenient if the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) would agree that we could take at the same time his Amendment No. 3, in page 1, line 14, at end insert—
'(2A) Any scheme made under subsections (1) and (2) above shall be incorporated in a statutory instrument made by the Secretary of State; and no such scheme shall be made unless a draft of it has been laid before the House of Commons and approved by a resolution of that House.'

Mr. James Prior: Thank you, Mr. Murton. That would be acceptable.

Sir Anthony Meyer: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. You will see that on the Order Paper a number of amendments standing in my name are starred. I handed them in on Monday night, and therefore I am slightly perturbed to see them starred. Perhaps there has been some delay in the transmission system. Could you give me an assurance, Mr. Murton, that you will not be too strict in preventing me from making mention of these topics, which might serve to broaden the discussion of this ludicrously inadequate Bill?

The Chairman: Perhaps I could comfort the hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) by saying that he could make some reference to those matters in the debate on the Question, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Keith Stainton: On a point of order, Mr. Mutton. What is the explanation for the delay? If my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) is correct in saying that he handed in his amend-

ments on Monday night, I think that I am entitled to be informed of what has happened and why they remain starred on the Order Paper.

Sir A. Meyer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. I am bound to say that I did hand in the amendments on Monday night. I do not blame anybody, but the fact is that they did not arrive until Tuesday morning, and under the rules if they arrive on Tuesday they are starred.

The Chairman: It could be that the amendments arrived after what is known colloquially as cut-off time.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. John Golding): I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 7, after 'paying', insert:
'during a period for which this section has effect'.
The Bill provides that expenditure on job release is subject to the normal procedures for approval by the House for expenditure proposed in the annual estimates. I understand, however, and I sympathise with, the desire of Opposition Members to subject the operation of job release to more specific scrutiny by the House. The Opposition amendment, however, would entail the introduction of an order containing all the details of any scheme which the Government wished to operate and the order would be subject to affirmative resolution procedure.
I accept that the Bill gives the Secretary of State power which is too sweeping and which ought to be limited in some way beyond what is already provided in the Bill. However, the Opposition amendment itself has limitations. It would prevent flexibility in operation and would stop any Government from reacting speedily to any useful changes which might be suggested.
If the Government had to bring in an order each time they wished to adapt the rules, that could prevent valuable improvements being made and anomalies being removed as they arise. However, I want the Committee to accept the spirit of the Opposition amendment, and the Government's amendments set out to do this.
Our amendments would ensure that the authority contained in the Bill to finance schemes would last for only 18 months


in the first instance. It would be open to the Secretary of State to seek to extend his authority for up to 12 months at a time, or to revive it at a future date if a situation arose in which job release was wanted. In each case, he would need to bring in an order subject to affirmative resolution to activate his powers.
This procedure seems well suited to a Job Release Bill. Such schemes must be tailored to meet the needs of the moment, and the House should have the opportunity to discuss their use against the circumstances of the time. I hope that the Committee will accept this proposal as a reasonable compromise between the need for flexibility in the operation of job release, on the one hand, and what could be regarded as too sweeping a measure on the other.

Mr. David Madel: The Minister said when he began that he wanted to meet the spirit of our amendment by moving his own amendment. He will know from the Second Reading debate that one of our major concerns, which was expressed throughout that debate, was the need for parliamentary control of the job release scheme.
We note that in Amendment No. 2 the scheme will run for 18 months from the passing of the Act, and there is then what could be called a 12-month roll-on position, provided that a draft of the scheme has been laid before the House and has been approved by resolution of the House, so that as the amendment is now drafted we shall automatically have a debate on this matter.
I want to ask a couple of questions about subsection (2A) in Amendment No. 2. As I understand it, this means that if a person applied for job release 17½months after the passing of the Act, although the Act might not be rolled forward he would nevertheless be paid for the 12 months after the 18-month period had expired. The leaflet referring to unemployed people that the Department has published states that,
In addition you must apply two weeks before the date from which you wish the allowance to be paid.
I assume from that that someone whose birthday comes at the end of the 18-

month period, even if the Act was not rolled forward, would nevertheless be paid for the year following the 18 months.
Secondly, let us assume that 18 months after the Act was passed the Government decided, in the light of the employment situation, to roll on the procedure for another 12 months. I assume that the same would apply, namely that 11½months after the House had passed the resolution it would be possible for a person to make an application and to be paid for the following 12 months, given that the Government did not operate a further period of the scheme. We want to know more precisely what will happen, since this is something of a new departure from the original Bill. Are the Government proposing to give publicity particularly to the effects of subsection (2A) in Amendment No. 2?
We welcome the fact that the Government are to meet us on the question of having a debate and having the matter scrutinised. I accept the Minister's point that as employment conditions change, either for the better or for the worse, the Government may have to alter the scheme, for example, by extending it to the non-assisted areas as opposed to the assisted areas where the scheme now operates. But we want to scrutinise it very carefully and we certainly do not want to give the Minister a completely blank cheque. That was the reason for our anxiety and why we tabled Amendment No. 3.
Nevertheless, the Government have gone some way to meet us in Amendments Nos. 1 and 2, although some clarification of the points that I have raised about the 17½months and 11½months would be helpful to the Committee.

Mr. Golding: Since this point may arise throughout the debate this afternoon, I make it clear that there are two separate issues at stake. First, there is the Bill itself. The Bill is designed to give power to the Secretary of State to draw up schemes such as the present job release scheme, but the Bill is separate from the scheme itself.
The present scheme is operating only within the limits laid down in the pamphlet. This amendment in no way alters the present rules of the job release scheme. The scheme is at present a temporary scheme and we shall have to consider whether an extension is necessary.
The importance of our amendment is that it amends the ability of the Secretary of State to introduce such a scheme. It sets a time limit on the power that the Secretary of State is given under the Bill to draw up such temporary schemes. In fact, the amendment makes no difference whatsoever to the terms of the present job release scheme. I hope that that is clear to the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Madel).

Mr. Barney Hayhoe: I should like to return to this point, because parliamentary control is at the heart of the amendments now before us. Even with the Government amendments the Bill does away entirely with parliamentary control as it would normally be exercised in terms of the amount of money that will be paid to an individual, the qualifications that such an individual would need to fulfil, and the length of time for which the payments would be made.
This information is set out in the leaflet, but that leaflet has not been examined by Parliament. It was produced by the Secretary of State or his advisers. He could throw it away tomorrow and produce an entirely different scheme, so long as he could get the approval of the Treasury and the Department of Finance in Northern Ireland. That is the only control that would be exercised.
I wonder whether it is right for Parliament to abandon in this way its responsibility for the details of the scheme merely by giving a blanket authorisation to the Secretary of State and not to be concerned further with any changes or alterations that might be made. The Government have met our comments on Second Reading to an important extent by providing that they must seek the authority of Parliament, through the affirmative resolution procedure, if they want to continue the arrangements for longer than 18 months. That would permit an extension of 12 months.
We unreservedly welcome that that element of parliamentary control is being written in. Will the Government, however, look a little further and agree that it is right that there should be more detail in the Bill about the conditions that must be fulfilled and the amounts that can be paid out.
I do not doubt that there is somewhere a Conservative Bill from the past that makes this sort of blanket provision. In other debates we have acknowledged the errors that our political forefathers may have made in this sense. We must consider, however, whether it is right that when Parliament is dealing with substantial sums of public money it should opt out of control as much as it tends to.
This is not a specific criticism of the Bill. I am raising a more general point and asking whether we ought not to mend our parliamentary ways and make certain that there is reasonable parliamentary control over the amounts paid out, the period for which they would be paid and the qualifications of those who would receive them.
It was with that in mind that we tabled Amendment No. 3. Our intention was that the details of the scheme under which the payments would be made would have to be incorporated into a Statutory Instrument that would be laid before the House. The details would then be attached to the legislation.
I accept the Under-Secretary's point about the lack of flexibility inherent in our amendments. He said that it would prevent a quick change being made to the scheme by the Secretary of State. It would not hold up a change for long. though. The House can find time to debate urgent matters, particularly unemployment. If our amendment were accepted I am sure that ways could be found of dealing with the consequences without creating too much inconvenience or difficulty.
We are dealing here with the question of control by Parliament over public money. We should concern ourselves with the details of how these sums are paid out to individuals. I ask the Minister to consider the matter further and to see whether he can go further to meet us in our objective.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Golding: Expenditure on job release is subject to the normal procedures of approval by the House of expenditure proposed under the annual Estimates. We do not have to look to our political forefathers on this matter. The Employment and Training Act 1973, a very valuable Act, would be well-nigh unworkable if


every change in the regulations and in training schemes had to be laid before the House. The parliamentary time for such an exercise is just not available.
I believe that administrative rules should be announced to Parliament and that the opportunity should be given both to the Opposition and to our own Back Benchers to discuss those rules along with any changes that are made. We would certainly undertake to announce such changes in the House. We are prepared at any time to discuss with the Opposition the rationale of any changes. We feel very strongly that there should be parliamentary accountability.
Use of the affirmative resolution procedure, however, is such that Leaders of the House from both sides would find it difficult to honour a commitment involving it. We therefore ask the Opposition to support our amendments and not to press their own.

Sir A. Meyer: The Secretary of State for Employment knows my admiration and affection for him, and if I use strong words I hope that he will not take it as a personal criticism. The habit has grown up among Governments of treating Parliament with absolute contempt. This Bill will be totally incomprehensible to the lay person who looks it up in the statute book. I appears to authorise the Secretary of State to do just about anything that the Treasury will allow him to do in order to create job vacancies and mitigate the effect of high unemployment.
The Bill gives no indication of what is intended, and I believe that something should be written into it to indicate at the very least that, even for the best of motives, Parliament has not entirely adopted the rôle of a rubber stamp for the Government.
The arrangement simply is not good enough. The Government should be prepared at least to accept Amendment No. 3, if only to pay lip service to the idea of parliamentary control. As drafted, the Bill is a slap in the face for our elected institution.

Mr. Hayhoe: The Minister has gone some way to meet us. While I endorse the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) about the Bill being a blank cheque, and its

effect on someone who looks at it and thinks how extraordinary it is that Parliament should pass something so wide and untrammelled, I do, nevertheless, appreciate that there are some constraints in that estimates must be laid before the House and the moneys paid out in total must be within these estimates. But the individual sums authorised will be a matter with which the House will not have a chance to deal.
However, in view of what the Minister has said about being prepared to come to the House with any significant changes, we believe that some progress has been made in parliamentary accountability, which is important to all hon. Members. We are glad of the assurance that important changes will not be made by Written Answer on the last day of the Session, but will come instead by way of a statement that can be questioned on the Floor of the House. Therefore, I welcome the Government's approach and the broad assurances the Minister has given.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 2, in page 1, line 14, at end insert—
'(2A) As subsection (1) operates as authority for the payment of allowances during a period it also operates as authority for payment of an allowance after the expiration of the period to a person whose application for an allowance has been approved in the period.
(2B) This section has effect—

(a) for the period of eighteen months beginning with the passing of this Act, and
(b) for such subsequent periods as the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument provide for it to have effect.

but no one order shall provide for this section to have effect for more than twelve months.
(2C) An order under this section shall not be made unless a draft of it has been laid before the House of Commons and approved by a resolution of that House.'—[Mr. Golding.]

Mr. Fred Silvester: I beg to move Amendment No. 5, in page 2, line 4, at end add—
'(5) No provision shall be made enabling a person to qualify for the allowance if that person is unemployed at the time when the application for the allowance is made or during the seven days immediately preceding the first payment of the allowance.'
This brings us back to the debate we had on Second Reading whether the scheme should apply to people currently on the unemployment register or whether


it should be limited to people who are surrendering their jobs and making them available to people from the register. It is inevitable that we should put down an amendment to achieve this end, even though on Second Reading the Government gave no indication of giving way.
The effect of this measure is essentially to make it easier for people to move into a job. Some people are happy to retire a year early and make their jobs available to younger people. That is unexceptionable and it is the accepted principle on which this Bill is based. Therefore it seems illogical to apply the scheme to someone who has no job. If such a person comes off the unemployment register through the scheme, no one is better off as a result. It was argued on Second Reading that the reason for this is to reduce the pressure created by the presence of these people on the labour market and to facilitate the mobility of jobs.
I asked the Parliamentary Secretary a question about the number of people in the pre-retirement age group who were employed from the register. The figures were not available for the precise age group of the last year of employment, but he gave me some figures from a sample conducted among one group of people over 60 and another group between 50 and 59. Among those over 60, 2 per cent. were placed in jobs, and among those between 50 and 59, the figure was 8 per cent. It must follow that if we take the last year of employment—59 for women and 64 for men—the figure would be very small indeed. The figure of 2 per cent. for those over 60 compares with a figure of 10 per cent. in that age group who are unemployed. For those between 50 and 59, the 8 per cent. compares with 12 per cent. unemployed. Even on these inadequate figures there is substantial evidence that the problem of placing people in this age group is very small compared with the overall situation. Therefore the argument that it is necessary to reduce the pressure caused by this age group is clearly unproven.
Because of the way in which the scheme has been devised one can see the advantages for someone to move off the unemployment register and take up job release. By taking up job release a person will receive £23 a week. The present rate

of unemployment benefit together with an earnings related supplement for a single person is £25. Those figures are very comparable and if the benefits are not earnings related one might even gain from job release. If one has a job the advantage or otherwise of the £23 a week depends on one's current earnings and the arrangements for pension. On the face of it, the advantages are weighted in favour of the unemployed taking up job release rather than the employed.
We must add to that the fact that the scheme is limited to the assisted areas. One of the reasons for this is that it would cost a lot more to extend it nationally. We have heard time and again in this House that there are patches of very severe unemployment in other parts of the country with people suffering just as much as in the assisted areas. Therefore, if the money is available for this scheme, it is preferable that it should be allocated to people who are prepared to surrender a job in an unassisted region than to juggle with the figures of unemployed in the assisted regions.
I am not trying to be beastly to the Government but the fact is that as it stands this measure will simply transfer these people from the current unemployed register to job release. It is not as if the unemployed will disappear. They are still unemployed, but they will become, as it were, unemployed (job release).

Mr. Jim Craigen: But surely we do not include retired people in unemployment statistics?

Mr. Silvester: That is quite true, but the object of retirement is different from this situation. We are talking about people who, under the existing situation, are defined either as employed or unemployed because they are within the normal age of employment. One can remove all sorts of people from this category by using various criteria, but up to now we have been talking of economically active age groups and that is a perfectly reasonable stand.
To summarise these arguments, we shall not benefit someone who is currently on the unemployed register in the sense that we are giving him a job by applying the scheme to the unemployed. The money that we are making available could be better spent in other areas on other people.
One can see that this assessment is right when one understands the latest figures from the Department. Of the 8,261 applicants who had applied by 4th March, 71 per cent. were from the unemployment register and only the other 29 per cent. had a job to give up. That clearly cannot be the object of the exercise, so the Government must make some adjustment.
5.0 p.m.
The matter can be taken a stage further. The Under-Secretary kindly gave me some information about the way in which the figures were being calculated. On Second Reading we were concerned about the difference between the 78,000 people mentioned in the Explanatory Memorandum and the 65,000 whom it was expected to remove from the register. I now have to hand the explanation of who those 13,000 people are. They are those who may be described as having drifted out of the rules, in the sense that they are not people who were taken, as was expected, from the unemployment register but people who are either not catered for because the employer did not then take on anyone else, or school-leavers who were unemployed but were not already on the register.
Those 13,000 people will all come from the employed, not the unemployed, side. On that calculation, 50 per cent. to 60 per cent. of those who currently have a job under this scheme will not be replacing those on the register. That is on the existing figures. In months to come, that ratio of 71 per cent. to 29 per cent. may change, of course.
Therefore, in another way I am underlining our basic proposition. This scheme has a good deal of good will. It is based on a sensible proposition, and one that will get wide support in industry as well as in this House, but it seems silly to us to arrange the scheme so that about three-quarters of its financial provision goes to those whom it is not primarily designed to help.

Mr. David Knox (Leek): I support the amendment so ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Silvester). It would help to make the Bill more effective. Like my hon. Friend, I sympathise with the concept behind the Bill, which is a sensible

way of dealing with a difficult situation. However, as drafted, it means that most of those who will benefit will come off the unemployment register.
It seems as though the Government's main intention is a reduction in the numbers of registered unemployed rather than the creation of vacancies for younger unemployed people. The amendment would put much greater pressure on the Government to make the scheme known among people in employment and thus lead to the Government encouraging such people of the right age to vacate jobs.
It is far too easy for the Government merely to move people from the register into the scheme and thus appear to be improving the unemployment figures. As my hon. Friend rightly said, the chances of those in the age group covered by the scheme getting a job are not good. It is not likely that at that time in their working lives, they will find other work. Therefore, if the job release scheme is concentrated in practice on those on the register rather than on encouraging people to vacate jobs, it will not make the sort of contribution for which I would hope.

Sir Anthony Meyer: When the Government face unemployment totals like those we have at present, temptation for them to think up some scheme is irresistible: "Don't just sit there. Do something". Every kind of device has to be thought up. I do not blame them. Democratic responsibility requires them to be seen to be doing something. There is always the danger that any scheme will seem a gimmick. Indeed, the whole of the job creation programme, laudable though it is, is always open to this kind of accusation. Under the present measure, the revelation that 71 per cent. of those applying are already unemployed themselves lends an air of gimmickry to the scheme.
I am sure that the Minister knows his Russian history. The Empress Catherine the Great had a First Minister, and incidentally a lover, called Potemkin, who was anxious to impress the Empress with what he had achieved in bringing prosperity to the outlying regions. He used to take her on great journeys through Russia. He had a little team of men precede the imperial party by one day who would erect along Catherine's


line of progress magnificent facades of villages complete with gaily-dressed villagers who would cheer the Empress as she travelled through. The moment that she had passed, the facades were pulled down, taken ahead of her again during the night and erected the next day further along the imperial route. The Empress returned enormously impressed, but in fact not a village had been built.
The same process seems to be at work with the unemployment register. People are just being shifted around to make the statistics look better. The Government would do well to reconsider those provisions, which enable people who are already unemployed to come off the register in a totally bogus piece of job creation. If they removed this obvious cheat from the Bill, its reputation would be enhanced and it might mitigate the damage to the whole job creation programme.

Mr. A. G. F. Hall-Davis: I support the amendment. The operation of the scheme is being distorted by this provision of transfer from the unemployment register. If it does no other disservice, it tends to distract attention from the worthwhile aspects of the scheme and conceal the fact that the scheme has had a far smaller response than many of us had hoped. We might therefore be prevented from considering what should be done to make the scheme more attractive.
I hope to be able to say a little more about cost on the Question, That the clause stand part of the Bill. Perhaps the Minister will reply then, if he cannot do so now, to this question. Does the fact, as I understand it—no doubt he will correct me if I am wrong—that a surprisingly reduced proportion of registered unemployed actually claim benefit enter into the calculation of the cost of the scheme?
I still find the cost puzzling. If one were just replacing unemployment benefit with the job release payment, the net cost would be nil. If the calculations to which the Minister referred in a letter to me take into account the replacement of unemployment benefit as a deduction from the gross cost, it would not affect the cost of the scheme. But, if some of those transferring from the unemployed register are registered unemployed who

are not in receipt of unemployment benefit, there is a sizeable addition to the net cost.
I know that this is not an easy question to rehearse, but one of the things that puzzles the Department and my hon. Friends is the shortfall in the numbers drawing unemployment benefit compared with the numbers of registered unemployed. I understand that the Department is investigating that.
If allowance has been made in the costing for quite a number of those transferring from the registered unemployed to the job release scheme to be people who are not drawing unemployment benefit, that transfer represents a net cost in full to the job release scheme.
I shall now get back in order because I have been giving notice of a matter that the Minister might wish to reply to on the debate on the clause. That is another argument for dealing with this category of people separately and for not wrapping them up with those who create a job opportunity. Those of us who are interested in the project had not thought that the scheme would provide a lay-by into which those that are already on the unemployed register could sidestep. We thought that it would provide job vacancies.
It would be better if action were taken to ensure that the scheme concentrates on what it was meant to do—to get people into jobs who are young and active and who would remain unemployed if someone did not make way for them. That is the purpose of the scheme.
Perhaps there is a need to tidy up the unemployed register, but that may distort the cost and be responsible for creating the puzzle why the net cost exists when some of us feel that there should not be a cost at all but a saving.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Golding: I know more about the problems of the unemployed than about Russian history so I cannot follow the hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) in his story.
The amendment gives me difficulty. It is directed to the details of the present scheme and it would write into an enabling Bill a specific provision. We would resist the amendment on that


ground alone, but I shall not rest my argument on that. Let us consider the arguments that are directed to the rules of the scheme itself. I reiterate that the Bill, with or without the amendment, would permit a scheme that provides for the unemployed or that provides for their exclusion. The Bill does not of necessity mean that the unemployed are included in the scheme.
As Opposition hon. Members probably know, this afternoon I intend to make a reasonable number of concessions on the rules relating to the scheme. However, this is not one of them. We strongly believe that the present rules are fair. That does not mean that we are not disappointed that more of the unemployed have not taken advantage of the scheme.
Hon. Members have argued for an adjustment in the proportions, and I accept what they have said. We shall look carefully at ways in which we can increase the numbers of those in employment taking advantage of the scheme.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—who apologises for leaving the Chamber because he has had to go to an important Government meeting—wrote to many employers, trade unions and others asking that greater publicity be given to the scheme as it effects the employed. I accept criticism about the inadequate take-up of the scheme by the employed. But that does not lead me to agree that we should exclude the unemployed. The hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Knox) said that older people are not likely to get jobs and that was also the burden of the argument by the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Silvester). That is an argument for including the unemployed in the scheme because the Bill does not only provide for the creation of job vacancies. Clearly set out in Clause 1 is the phrase:
…otherwise mitigating the effects of high unemployment".
One of the effects of high unemployment is the difficulty that women of 59 and men of 64 experience in finding employment. There is an argument, in assisted areas where unemployment is high and people have difficulty in obtaining work, for removing them from the competition for work.

Sir A. Meyer: The Title of the Bill is the Job Release Bill. It is not the "Unemployment Statistics Obfuscation Bill."

Mr. Golding: We shall return to the Title of the Bill later. Opposition hon. Members on the Front Bench take the matter more seriously than the hon. Member for Flint, West. The Bill is intended to
provide finance for job release schemes; and for a connected purpose".
If the hon. Member had actually read the Title of the Bill he would see that both categories are covered. We shall be discussing statistics on a later amendment and I do not want to enter into that now because it would pre-empt the later discussion.
It is as important to reduce the competition for jobs amongst the old as it is to provide for job release. Additionally there would be a great deal of unfairness if the unemployed were excluded from the scheme because for many it would be a lottery whether they were entitled to the job release allowance. It would be a lottery whether redundancies were declared at one point of time or another. We would have to have a bureaucracy which we do not want in operating ways in which employment could be arranged and job release arranged, with the unemployed moving into jobs only subsequently to leave them in order to get job release terms. There are substantial practical difficulties in distinguishing between them, but I do not want to rest my case on that. I rest it basically on three points.
First, the Bill is not presented only as a job release Bill. I made it clear on Second Reading, and have repeated, that secondly, it is also designed to reduce competition amongst that age group for work. Thirdly we also believe that it would be utterly unfair if it were possible for the employed to get such an allowance at the age of 59 or 64 but impossible for the unemployed. I hope that the Opposition will not press the amendment.

Mr. Silvester: I do not think that the Under-Secretary of State has come to grips with the central issue. I have not misled the House as to the reasons, and the hon. Gentleman has repeated them


again. One of the functions is job release, and the second is to reduce competition. The figures I started with, and which were figures that he himself gave to me on 17th February, were of those people who got jobs. The over-60s in the whole five-year period accounted for 2 per cent. of the people getting jobs. The whole of this superstructure is, therefore, being set up for a minuscule number of people. Is it really that unfair?
I realise that the Minister is not going to change his mind, but much of his speech was devoted to saying how sorry he was that the balance is 71/29 and how he hoped that it would alter. The reason why the position is such is that the balance of advantage is greater if one is unemployed than it is if one is employed. It is much easier to justify a move to a new form of benefit which is likely to be equal to or higher than unemployment benefit than it is to justify going to one's family with the proposition that one will get a weekly income less than one is currently receiving. That means that the balance is in favour of the unemployed.
It means, therefore, that we have to take into account the attraction to people in employment. If one has to have the same terms for both those who are unemployed and those who are employed, one imposes such a strain on the whole thing and makes it so expensive that one cannot do anything to make it more attractive for the employed.

Mr. Golding: There is one difference. which I think may not be appreciated outside. Certainly, I did not appreciate it myself until a late stage. Tax rebates to the employed mean that they are in a substantially different financial position from those who take job release from the unemployed register who generally do not get tax relief. But in any consideration of the extension of the scheme, we shall bear the hon. Gentleman's remarks very much in mind. I hope that he will take on board the point about tax relief.

Mr. Silvester: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I do not know the size of that factor, and I suppose that it will vary. But it is certainly a major consideration. But even if the hon. Gentleman takes it into his sums, he will still have to bear in mind the relative attrac-

tiveness. I simply put to him that it will be important for him not to so weight the scheme in favour of considerations about fairness to a tiny number of people who are on the unemployment register at that age that he cannot make it sufficiently attractive to those in employment. This is a major consideration. I suppose that we are not going to win the point, but I will not withdraw the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Hayhoe: The Under-Secretary of State has said on a number of occasions that this is a general enabling Bill. The heart of it is Clause 1. I wonder, in these circumstances, by what authority payments are now being made. Two leaflets have been circulated, and no doubt there is some parliamentary authority for payments which are now being made. However, one wonders why, if there is already in being legislation which permits the scheme to be operating, this Bill is needed. If the Bill is essential, by what authority, therefore, are payments now being made? Or is there some provision which permits the Government in a temporary sense to go ahead but imposes on them the obligation of coming to the House with a Bill of this kind in order to get authority? It would be helpful if the hon. Gentleman could indicate the precise legal position.
There is reference in the two leaflets—one for employed people and the other for unemployed people—to the fact that an individual
…will be required to refund any overpayment of the allowance which has been made.
In both leaflets, that sentence is under the general heading
Can you leave the scheme if you want to?
I am not clear whether, if an individual who is benefiting from the scheme decides that he wishes to leave it, the reference to refunding overpayment means that he has to refund the payment he has already received, or whether the question of refunding overpayment really has nothing to do with the heading but is just a general statement that if by chance, through an administrative error, overpayments are made, there will be an obligation on the individual to make a refund.
There will clearly be questions of interpretation. What will happen if an individual who thinks that he is entitled to a payment under the scheme is refused one and feels aggrieved by the decision? Will there be some appeals machinery? There is such machinery for someone denied sickness benefit or unemployment benefit, or who feels that he is not receiving the supplementary benefit to which he is entitled. There are well established appeal procedures in such cases which allow the individual to seek redress of his grievances. Will one of these existing procedures be adapted for this new scheme, or is it proposed that the discretion of the authorities should be absolute in the first contact with the individual in his application to be involved with the scheme?
Perhaps the Minister will be able to help us about the note that appears in both leaflets that states:
This leaflet is written in general terms and should not be regarded as a complete or authoritative statement about the scheme.
I can assure the Minister that I have a few constituents—I am sure that he has—who will immediately ask for the complete and authoritative statement on seeing such a note. I wonder where they will have to go for such a statement. If it is available, perhaps he will make arrangements for it to be placed in the Library, or make arrangements for it to be available to Members and others who wish to consult it.
5.30 p.m.
In a scheme of this nature undoubtedly there will be marginal cases where people think they are entitled to payment and will not be receiving it. I accept that there are always possibilities of finding areas of ambiguity but I wonder how the grievances will be resolved that might arise from the ambiguity of what is written in the leaflet.
The three points that I have made, apart from the general point about the authority and legality of present payments and the necessity for a Bill that provides general enabling authority, are inter-linked. If over-payments are made, under what circumstances will a refund be demanded? Any demand for a refund could quickly lead to a dispute. How would such a dispute be resolved?
Other disputes could arise—for example, if someone felt that he was being unreasonably denied access to the scheme. I notice that an employee has to be working in an assisted area whereas an unemployed person has to be living in an assisted area. Arguments can be envisaged at the margin. There may well be an instance where an employee living outside an assisted area receives payment and his wife, in chatting over the garden fence to the wife of the man next door, says "My husband is getting £23 a week." That may well result in the wife next door asking her husband" Why don't you go and ask for this payment?".
I am sure that the Minister will understand how such difficulties can arise. Undoubtedly they will come to the Minister and Members of Parliament. We require further clarification and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to assist the House by giving further explanations of how various issues can be resolved in such a way that the individuals concerned, and the individual neighbours, feel that the scheme is being run in a proper and fair fashion and is not dependent upon the arbitrary actions of Government servants who will have to deal with the day-to-day working of the scheme.
I hope that the Minister will be able to answer the questions that I have posed and the questions that will be raised by some of my hon. Friends who wish to intervene at this stage.

Mr. Hall-Davis: I suppose that it is not very often that we have the chance of only one debate on the Question, That the clause stand part of the Bill, when dealing with such a significant Bill. My comments will be something of a hotchpotch or mixed bag but they will, I hope, be directed towards ensuring the smoother operation and the greater success of the Bill.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe) mentioned taxation, I shall start with that item. I feel that here is a significant element in persuading people to take advantage of the scheme.
As I understand it, someone who ceases work under the job release scheme severs all connection with his employer at the time of cessation. Someone who retires in these early weeks of the


scheme may have contributed income tax for nine months of the financial year through the pay-as-you-earn system. Were they to be absent through sickness, or laid off by their employer as a result of bad trading conditions, they would immediately begin to recoup that tax according to their earnings level and tax position. They would do so week by week through their employer and the pay-as-you-earn system so that by the end of the tax year they would stand level pegging, broadly speaking, with the Inspector of Taxes. In other words, they would have recouped any over payment made in the early months of the year. Under this scheme, however, they would not receive the week-by-week reinforcement of the £23·50 through the pay-as-you-earn system.
As I understand the position of those who have left employment, tax payments are in effect frozen in the capable hands of the Treasury until after 5th April when the individual, who may never have made a tax return in his working life if the Inland Revenue's careful eye has not happened to fall upon him as an individual, has to complete a form declaring all sources of income and lodge a claim for the repayment of tax. I have no doubt that that will be done with scrupulous accuracy and fairness but it means that the applicant will have to wait, unlike someone who goes sick or is laid off. That will be a deterrent, especially in September-October in the next tax year when substantial tax payments may have been made and when the individual will have to wait six months before he can reclaim them.
If someone retires now his position will not be so acute because while he may have substantial tax to reclaim that can be done after 5th April. Ideally the individual should be able to claim it back weekly within the scope of the pay-as-you-earn scheme. I am sure that the Minister will try to achieve that but I suspect that he will not be able to do so.
If the hon. Gentleman is not able to make that arrangement, perhaps he will ask his colleagues in the Treasury to issue a priority direction to tax offices to the effect that when job release people who have never been enmeshed in the tax return procedure seek help in getting back their tax, they will be given special help and prompt payment. Be that as

it may, it will still be a pity that the person retiring in September will not get back his pay-as-you-earn contributions for six months.
My second point is much concerned with administration. It concerns a niggle rather than a real deterrent. I can assure the Minister that although this may or may not be in accordance with the way in which he wishes the scheme to operate, it is within the scope of my personal experience. What I am saying is concrete fact. An employer with a highly specialised employee who was over 64 on 1st January was told by the employee that he would like to take advantage of the job release scheme. It so happens—this was a 100 per cent. bona fide case—that another employee in the district with the same special skills had been told that he was to be made redundant at the beginning of February. The employer of the man wishing to retire got in touch with the employment office who said that that arrangement would be fine. The employer named the person whom he wanted to take on because he had the skills that were needed. That person had been told that he would be unemployed from 1st February.
The employment office said that was fine and that the employer should tell the person concerned to inform the employment office that he would be unemployed from 1st February. But when he went to the office he was told that they had checked with Runcorn and had been told that, in order to fulfil the employer's obligation to take someone from the employment register, he would have to draw benefit before starting work in his new job. He was therefore obliged to spend a week kicking his heels, and he received the princely sum of £13—being a married man with two children. Then he started work with his new employer. There was no need for the interval and it was aggravating for a man who knew that he had a job to spend a week being unemployed.
I was told about a similar case by a person whose reliability I cannot question, but I am not certain of the precise details. This was the case of a company that was approached by a large number of people who said that they wanted to take advantage of the job release scheme. It so happened that an associated company, although it may not have been


a subsidiary had a redundancy phase going on. Again, the same instruction was given to all the people in the other company. They could not move directly to the company that had vacancies created as a result of the job release scheme.
I can appreciate the Department and trade unions perhaps being a little apprehensive in case the job release scheme was used as a method by employers to avoid making redundancy payments. In the early days I felt that that was why the unions did not press for the scheme with more vigour. I acquit them of that. But it is aggravating when company X knows that it is making people redundant and company Y has vacancies as a result of the scheme, and yet people must have a short period of unemployment in order to put the employer with the job release scheme retirement vacancies in the clear.
I also ask the Minister to address his mind to the matter of pensions because I am sure that uncertainty on the part of individuals as to how they stand with regard to their occupational pensions must be a deterrent to early retirement. At present, early retirement has a double impact on pension entitlement. Obviously, it reduces the formula fraction by one year—for example, if someone leaves at the age of 64 rather than 65 there is a year of missing service. In other words, a man with a potential 40 years of service who goes a year early—if his pension fraction is calculated in 60ths—receives 39/60ths instead of 40/60ths.
The position is aggravated, because in a period of high inflation—although this is somewhat mitigated by current pay policy—he also loses a one-year increment in his pay. So his pension suffers twice. He has a slightly smaller fraction and his final pensionable salary is cut off a year short.
Large firms are probably the companies that can make the biggest contribution to the job release scheme, or who will, at any rate make a substantial contribution if one looks at this realistically. I am not being unkind or deprecatory about older employees, but it is in the interest of such companies to encourage someone of near retirement age to retire. It is a kindness to the individual and it is in the interest of the

employer. I have yet to find a man who does not say "Thank You" to his employer for retiring him early, provided it is done on generous terms.
5.45 p.m.
Employers with occupational pension schemes could well make up for that lost year of service and give the individual a notional year's pension entitlement. In the overwhelming majority of cases that could be done without breach of the revenue rules for pensions. The cost, roughly speaking, of the one year's contributions, employer's as well as employee's, that the firm would be carrying, would be dependent on the quality of the scheme. It would be from 5 per cent. to 20 per cent. of the payroll, and most employers would not regard that as an excessive payment if it were put to them simply and clearly—in order to replace someone at the end of his working days with someone youthful, vigorous, wanting to get on, willing to work overtime and possessing the other advantages of youth that are slipping away from many of us, including the present speaker.
If one takes a realistic view, it would not harm the employer to uprate the pension for that one year of early retirement. Again, the employer could do this within the revenue rules. He could uprate the pension and give an augmentation in line with inflation since the day of retirement. These are complicated things for some small companies but not for local authorities, nationalised industries, public services, the Civil Service, the local government service and large firms. These may sound like technicalities, but they are the sort of things that will decide whether someone does actually take advantage of the scheme.
I raised my next point on Second Reading, but we are now in Committee and we are unlikely to reach 17 sittings on the Bill. Therefore, I make no excuse for raising it in detail again. I return to the matter of cost. I thank the Minister for a letter that he sent to me and to the Opposition spokesman, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Silvester). I am grateful. One does not always receive letters two days before the Committee stage. They tend to arrive two days after. It is a frank and realistic letter and it is of interest, so, since I think it is within


the bounds of order, I shall read what the Minister said. Cost is puzzling and it still puzzles me. He said:
With a scheme of this kind, which is entirely new in this country, the estimates have of necessity to be based on assumptions about the likely effects of the scheme. This means that the calculations are perhaps rough and ready and I would be the last to claim that they were much more than that. We have, where judgments had to be made, generally used the higher of the estimated figures available to us, so as to avoid serious understatement of the likely costs of the scheme.
That is a policy that everyone on this side would support and I wish that the Government had followed it more closely hitherto. The Minister is really saying that he is taking a cautious view on cost, and that is understandable.
I referred to a point earlier on which the Minister may comment, but it is important that the Government should know the true expense of the scheme because if the true net cost is nil or if there is a net saving to the Government as a result of the scheme, then the case for increasing the benefit payable or for extending the scheme—that my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington, was pressing earlier—to the non-assisted areas is much strengthened.
It is clear from the relationship between the gross and net cost that only minor changes in the calculations could bring the net cost down to nil or, indeed, turn it into a saving for the Government. I ask the Minister—and I hope that he will not shy away from this without giving it reasonable consideration, although he may already have the matter in hand —whether he would take a cost sample in some areas. Runcorn could, presumably, feed back to the sample employment offices details of from which employers the applications come. It would then not be a large task to approach the employers asking whom they had taken on. It would be a safeguard for that to be done anyway as a check and a true assessment could then be made as to what saving in benefit payments there has been for individuals coming into work. I do not think that is beyond the capacity of the Department and it would not be laying a very heavy administrative burden upon it.
In his letter, the Under-Secretary said:

As regards the level at which we have fixed the job release allowance—£23 per week—we have tried to keep it broadly in line with other state benefits, such as retirement pension.
I read that sentence at first as a rebuttal of what I had been asking for on Second Reading, but on reflection I do not think that it was a rebuttal because many other employment benefits are earnings related and, as I said on Second Reading, if the scheme is to get off the ground and create vacancies across a reasonable spectrum of employment, rather than appealing only to those who are the lowest earners, the Government will have to realise that payments must include an earnings-related element.
I still hope that when the Minister has had an opportunity to check the cost, he will find that it is less than his cautious estimate and that there is scope for action along these lines.

Sir A. Meyer: The Minister need not fear that I shall be asking such difficult questions as those put by my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Mr. Hall-Davis), inspiration for the answers to which has already reached the Minister.
Since the Bill is extraordinarily widely drafted and since Clause 1 is the Bill, this debate gives me the opportunity to refer to two aspects that I had hoped to raise in amendments to make the scheme more effective.
I do not believe that the Government will find much difficulty in accepting one of my suggestions, but I readily recognise that the other may have wider implications from which they would prefer to shy away.
Let me start with the more difficult one. Since this is, to a fairly large extent, a self-balancing scheme, in that every person who benefits under it has to be matched by someone else for whom limited liability is provided, there is an opportunity here to make a move in a direction which, sooner or later and whatever Government is in power, will have to be travelled, namely, the equalising of retirement ages for men and women.
In this context, the Government could provide that, for the purpose of this measure, the retirement age for men should be 60, as it is for women, and that


men of 59 should be able to opt for retirement under the scheme in the same way as women of 59.
I expect that the Government will not wish to entertain this awful possibility even fleetingly and we shall have to await either an alteration in our democratic balance or the manifest collapse of the National Health Service to reduce the number of retired people to manageable proportions.
The Government could give serious consideration to my second suggestion which is that people of 64 who opt for retirement should not forfeit the payment of £23 a week provided in the Bill if they set themselves up as self-employed. Such a move could have an appreciable effect in increasing the number of people who will benefit under the Bill, in raising the general level of economic activity and in reducing the number of unemployed people.
I do not want to exaggerate the effects. There will not be that many 64-year-old people with the qualities to set themselves up as self-employed, though this number might be increased if the Government were sufficiently imaginative to be willing to commute the £23 a week into a capital sum of £1,200. That would enable many people to set themselves up in business in a small way.
I feel strongly about this matter because in my part of the world, we are faced with a small number of large employers running into difficulties simultaneously. We are being transformed, almost overnight, from an area of very low unemployment to an area of very high unemployment. This has brought home to me the danger of relying solely on large employers and the importance of spreading the risk.
One way of spreading the risk is to bring in small employers, but a better way is to increase greatly the number of people in business for themselves. I am keen on doing everything possible to increase the numbers of those who are able to set up in business as self-employed.
These thoughts occurred to me rather late in the day, but the Bill could make an effective contribution in these areas if the Government are prepared to be imaginative. It will not cost a lot more

and it could enable many more people to be usefully and gainfully occupied. The Government cannot now accept my proposed amendments, but if they will build into the scheme a provision for beneficiaries to set themselves up as self-employed, they will be doing something really useful.

Mr. Golding: I thank the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe) for the courteous way in which he put his questions. Payments under the present scheme are being made under the usual Appropriation Act procedure and the White Paper on the winter Supplementary Estimates for 1976–77 noted that, pending legislation, job release expenditure rested on that estimate and on the confirming Appropriation Act. Therefore, I do not think that I am in danger of being surcharged for the expenditure that we have already incurred.
The leaflet's reference to repayment means simply that if someone decides that he does not like job release and wants to go back to work he can do so, but if the Department has paid him for weeks during which he was back at work he will have to pay us back. We are making clear that even though we may have paid a person he is obviously ineligible if he has returned to work, and he will have to repay the money.
On the question of decision making, our procedures are different from those of the Department of Health and Social Security, where there are statutory authorities that are independent of the Executive, Ministers and Parliament. The situation is quite different. If a person were to be aggrieved by a decision I would certainly expect him to appeal, through his Member of Parliament, to the Minister. If the decision were unreasonable, the Member of Parliament would have several procedures open to him—Questions, or an Adjournment debate—and he would also be entitled to take the matter to the Ombudsman.
6.0 p.m.
There are adequate safeguards. We would certainly try to ensure that no arbitrary decisions were taken. If such decisions were taken we would try to correct them. I shall be returning to that matter shortly.
The pamphlet says that the conditions are not complete or authoritative. It is


right that that should be so. I find that if such words are not included on a pamphlet people feel quite entitled to believe that all the conditions are set down, and they act upon them. The words are cautionary, so this would normally lead someone to go to the local employment office or job centre to get advice. I am entirely in sympathy with the request that the rules be placed in the Library.
The general intention of the scheme has been announced by the Secretary of State. However, we come across anomalies very frequently and we have to take decisions on how to deal with particular cases. It is absolutely right that we should set down on paper the rules by which we are abiding and place them in the Library so that there can be no question of arbitrary government.
I understand absolutely the point of the argument. I represent a constituency that is just outside the area and I know very well the difficulties that have arisen as a result of the rules that we have drawn up. I know, therefore, the importance of laying down the rules in black and white so that hon. Members may look at them when people approach them on the subject.
I turn to the questions asked by the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Mr. Hall-Davis). I do not know sufficient about tax to be able to answer those questions at the Dispatch Box at present. I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the points made by the hon. Gentleman. I shall do that with great sympathy, because I want as many as possible of people in work to take advantage of this scheme. Clearly, the possibility of a quick tax rebate would be an inducement to them, although I may be told that that is impossible administratively. However, I shall draw to the Chancellor's attention to that point.
I said that we would look at all cases in which individuals felt aggrieved. My impression is that the wrong advice was given to the hon. Gentleman's constituent. If he will write to me about the case I shall consider it very carefully. It would not be my intention that we should have that sort of daft situation in which we force someone on to the dole for one week in order to enable him to comply with the requirements. I shall look care-

fully at the individual case. I am acting on a hunch here, but I think that the present rules do not need amendment to deal with the situation.
On the question of costings, the letter that I wrote to hon. Members dealt with the way in which we had arrived at our estimates. That was the point to which I was addressing myself. We had to do it in a rough and ready fashion because until we have some experience of the scheme we cannot really know the costings. We have to make as intelligent a guess as we can. Obviously, it will be sensible for us to get better assessments of the costs. However, I should like to wait a week or two to see whether we can increase the numbers taking up the scheme directly from work before we take the sample. I shall certainly want to know the financial consequence of the scheme.
I am told that of the registered unemployed generally, about 60 per cent. draw the benefit and 40 per cent. do not do so. I think that one major group—here again, I am speaking from memory —that has to be taken into account for the moment, although this will change, is married women, who may be registered as unemployed but not drawing unemployment benefit. Certainly the calculations take account of 60 per cent. Drawing unemployment benefit.
We have been at fault in not making it absolutely clear that if a person draws an occupational pension, in no way will that affect the £23 tax-free allowance. On the other hand, I cannot see that there is any way in which we can write rules into every indivdual occupatonal scheme which mean that an employer is bound in a particular way. Certainly we should have to have very lengthy discussions with the Confederation of British Industry before we decided to make rules of that sort.

Mr. Prior: My hon. Friend raised a very important point. He believes and I believe that this scheme will be used a great deal more in the future, and one of the obstacles that it will come up against will be the occupational pension schemes. Will the Minister consider having further talks with companies, and perhaps the British Insurance Association, to see whether there is not some way in which this problem can be overcome?


I quite understand that he has not been able so far to find a satisfactory way, but this matter will have to be looked at carefully, and it would be of the greatest benefit if a satisfactory arrangement could be made.

Mr. Golding: I could not give any undertaking about whom we would consult, but in view of the spirit in which the whole debate has taken place I undertake to look at the matter further.
We would certainly inquire whether there is any possibility of influencing outside bodies when they are drawing up and interpreting rules under the scheme. We shall look at the matter again very carefully. Again, I would not want those in occupational pension schemes to be deterred from taking job release if there were anything that we could do reasonably to prevent that. Therefore, we shall look at the matter again—although on our side we certainly have no intention of preventing people from drawing the allowance because they are drawing occupational pensions, or would draw them if they retired.
I turn to the contribution of the hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer). My first flippant remark is that I should like the scheme to be applied to men of 46 rather than men of 59, but I do not think that it is a runner, because the Bill is not drawn quite as widely as the hon. Gentleman suggested in an earlier contribution. The Bill talks of people approaching pensionable age. We have not defined that, but we would be hard put to it to say that 59, rather than 64, is "approaching pensionable age".
Certainly there is at present no chance of reducing to 60 the pension age for men. The allowance is only for one year, and we should not want a scheme whereby we paid the allowance for a man of between 59 and 60 who would then have to find further employment or go on to the unemployment register. I think that we shall have to stick to this situation until the State pensionable age changes.
I am afraid that I cannot be very helpful with regard to the self-employed. This could obviously lead to a lot of abuse. For example, in many industries it would be possible for someone to draw the job release allowance and then to

start using his services as a self-employed person. I do not think that we should allow people to work as self-employed at the same time as they are being paid a £23 tax-free allowance. If we did so I am sure that there would be howls from other self-employed people if they were in competition with individuals who were receiving basic support of £23 tax-free from the State. It would be impossible to do so.

Mr. Silvester: We are all concerned about the position of the self-employed in relation to various benefits. Surely what my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) is asking for is that a person who ceases to act as a self-employed person should be as entitled to the allowance as is someone who ceases to act as an employed person. We are not suggesting that the person continues self-employed work.
As for abuses, there could be a situation in which someone took on part-time work as a self-employed person while receiving job release allowance. The situation in respect of the self-employed is no more open to abuse than is anything else.

Mr. Golding: I think that it is. I shall have to read Hansard. I apologise if I have got the point wrong, but I felt that the hon. Gentleman was referring to a lump sum.

Sir Anthony Meyer: My hon. Friend and I were referring to two separate things. I fully understand the difficulty to which the Minister is referring. However, I still believe that this is worth a second look. I should be reassured if I were told that the Minister's Department would have another look at it.

Mr. Golding: I am prepared to look at anything at any time and at any hour. I shall look at this again, although I think it creates very great difficulties. Later on I shall be talking about the earnings limit and I shall be making some concessions. If the self-employed earn less than £4 a week they would be entitled to become unemployed under the new rules. I shall look at this, but without any hope at all, because I would be in dreadful trouble with other small traders in other small towns if they faced competition from a woman of 59 or a man of 64 who was receiving £23 a week


tax free in order to subsidise her on his self-employment.
To a great extent we are debating the rules of the scheme. We are prepared to look at these rules at any time. If, at any time, Opposition Members want to discuss the rules under which we are operating I shall be very pleased to meet them and to discuss at length the operation of the scheme as it exists.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Madel: Before we leave Clause 1 there are a couple of points that I should like to raise with the Minister relating to his opening speech on Second Reading. They are concerned with the mechanism used by people before they qualify for job release. When referring to what an employee has to do, the Minister said:
they are released by their employer, that the application is made with the knowledge and agreement of the trade union concerned, and that the employer recruits as soon as possible a full-time replacement from the unemployment register".
We were rather surprised by that remark. I do not think it is necessary to have the agreement of the trade union concerned. After all, a little later on, the Minister rightly said:
Workers should be employed on their merits, regardless of their age."—[Official Report, 14th February 1977; Vol. 926, c. 42.]
I would also add "regardless of their trade union affiliation". We do not need to get the trade unions involved in every single nut and bolt, although their relationship with the employer and employees may be so close that they automatically come in. We were a little puzzled by the Minister's remarks, not least because of the additional point that he made about people being employed on their merits.
I hope the Government also will keep an open mind with regard to the Belgian scheme. As the scheme works there, when someone takes job release the employer must take on from the unemployment register someone who is under 30. Where young people have acquired a skill, either by apprenticeship or through a sandwich course or some other form of further education, the sooner we can get their skills used the better. The greatest danger is that their skills will not be used early on, with the result that they do not get into the work habit.
After all, people have acquired those skills through a great deal of Government expense. Training schemes are a necessary basis and groundwork for acquiring new skills as technology and industry advances and makes alterations.
I end my remarks with the hope that the Government will keep an open mind about the Belgian scheme. I am not suggesting that it is working well—it is not—but we may have seriously to consider that scheme. I am grateful to the Minister for saying that he will have further consultations about pensions. In a letter to me he emphatically stated:
We shall however make it quite clear that from our side the receipt of an occupational pension shall not affect a person's entitlement to the Job Release allowance.
Publicity should be given to that, because there is still some confusion in people's minds about the way in which their occupational pension is affected.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 1

CONTRIBUTION RECORD

No allowance shall be paid under this Act unless the recipient would, with respect to his contribution record, be entitled to unemployment benefit and sickness benefit.—[Mr. Madel]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Madel: I beg to move, that the clause be read a Second time.
We have tabled this new clause as a means of probing the relationship between national insurance benefit and job release entitlement. I note that the weekly rate for job release is £23. If a married couple, both working, decided to take advantage of the job release scheme they would have a total income of £46 per week, compared with the supplementary benefit weekly rate for a married couple of only £20·65.
On Second Reading the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen), referring to rent or rates rebates, asked the Minister:
May I take it that that would not affect such matters as rent or rates rebates?


In reply, the Minister said:
That will have to be worked out with the Supplementary Benefits Commission."—[Official Report, 14th February 1977; Vol. 926, c. 43.]
I do not know what the ruling is on this matter. If the Minister has any information, or if there has been consultation between the Department and the Supplementary Benefits Commission following the launching of the scheme, we would be interested to know what the position is.
I take it from what has been said about the way in which the figures were arrived at for job release that that is subject to general adjustment, annual uprating and alterations that take place in supplementary and unemployment benefits.
The main reason behind this general probing clause is that we envisage a possibility, which I am about to describe, and we would like the Government's views. It would be possible, would it not, for somebody from overseas—a woman of 58½or a man of 63½—to come to this country, get a job and have that job end within six months? Under the unemployment rules, such a man or woman would not be able to claim unemployment benefit, not having paid an adequate amount by way of contributions.
The question is: would that man or woman be able to take advantage of the job release scheme by virtue of having worked for that length of time? That is not an impossibility. There are occasions when relatives who are capable of working come here and join the breadwinner. One wonders whether, given that situation, such a person would be entitled to claim under the scheme. I take it that he or she would not, but it would be interesting to have the Government's views.
If people come here from overseas and are without means, they come into the supplementary benefits net. We think it right to ask whether, in the circumstances that I have outlined, they would come under the job release scheme.
Secondly, regarding the relationship between national insurance benefits and such benefits as will be payable under the job release scheme, I should like to refer to the question of a married woman who relies on her husband's contributions to national insurance. Many such women

do not register as unemployed, as they are not eligible for unemployment benefit and have no national insurance contributions to keep up. I accept that for a woman of 59 the chances of finding a job are probably limited. However, under the job release scheme the question arises whether it would be possible for such a woman to register as unemployed for a short time and to collect the £23. If so, would it be possible for a married woman who has never worked to do the same? We should like some information on that matter.
The clause has been moved in a spirit of general probing to ascertain the Government's views on the examples which I have given, which are relevant, because they could certainly occur.

Mr. Golding: I must advise the Committee not to accept the clause, because I understand that it is legally defective. The term "contribution record" is ambiguous. However, I accept the spirit in which the questions have been posed.
On the question of rates rebates, on Second Reading I was wrong in one respect. They depend not only on the Supplementary Benefits Commission but on local authorities. I understand that although there will not be the same offset in some cases as there is for the first portion of the allowance, some allowance will be made.
There is as yet no question of an annual uprating, because we are dealing with a six months' scheme. If we decide to continue the scheme we shall have to look at the rules and consider whether we need to introduce an annual uprating.
The hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Madel) referred to people coming here from abroad. Under the scheme, people must have been employed, registered as unemployed, or certified sick on 3rd August. Therefore, on that date people must be in one of those categories before being eligible for benefit. We shall be careful to ensure that the job release scheme, if extended, is not exploited for other purposes.
The Government think it right that married women should receive the benefit if they qualify. If a married woman gives up her job it is proper for the £23 allowance to be paid to her just as it is to a man. In a case where a husband


and wife are working, the family income is obviously geared to that fact. We would not be able to persuade a married women to give up work at the age of 59 to create a vacancy for someone else unless she were to benefit under this scheme.
Finally, I should like to refer again to the Belgian scheme. We shall constantly watch the operation of that scheme. We shall look for inspiration abroad as well as listening to the points made here to see whether our scheme can be improved. I shall consider the specific questions posed by the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South and examine them carefully.

Mr. Madel: In view of what the Minister said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 3

LEVEL OF EARNINGS

No person shall be disqualified from receipt of an allowance by any scheme made under this Act by reason of his earnings where they are such as would be disregarded for the purposes of assessment of entitlement to supplementary benefit.—[Mr. Silvester.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Silvester: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
If I take the Minister's winks correctly, I understand that this clause will receive a sympathetic response. Therefore, I shall not push too hard at an open door.
Those who are not required to register for work and are in receipt of supplementary benefit are allowed a disregard of £4 before their benefit is affected. Therefore, it seems appropriate that a similar level of earnings should be permitted under this scheme. It will happen anyway. I suggest that it will ease the degree of enforcement if people are able to supplement their benefit in this way.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Golding: I hope that this matter will not be pressed, because we do not want such a provision to be included in an enabling Bill. We carefully examined the arguments aimed at allowing disregard in job release schemes

following points raised on Second Reading by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) and also by Opposition Members. I am happy to accept the spirit of the proposal.
I do not think it is right to incorporate such a provision in the Bill, but I have already changed the rules of the scheme so that people who earn up to £4 will in future be eligible for job release. I hope that the Opposition will appreciate that we have met completely the point raised on Second Reading.

Mr. Silvester: I am grateful for the change made in the rules. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 4

PUBLICATION OF STATISTICS

The Secretary of State shall publish statistics of people receiving allowances under this Act as a separate item in any unemployment statistics published by him.—[Mr. Hayhoe.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Hayhoe: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I shall deal with this clause briefly, because we are making speedy progress and the Minister is being most helpful.
The clause is meant to cover the point that has arisen from some of our discussions. If we examine the unemployment statistics we see that people registered as unemployed are incorporated in the total and are regarded as being in another category. If a substantial number of people take up the provisions of this scheme—and we hope that there will be a substantial take-up, since a proportion of those people are at present regarded as unemployed—we suggest that the reality of the situation is that this merely reflects a transfer into a different type of benefit. Therefore, we believe that some provision should be made in the normal ways in which the statistics are issued, so that there is comparability. We believe that the scheme is a genuine job release scheme and is not, as was suggested earlier, an employment statistics obfuscation scheme. I am sure that that is not the Minister's intention, but it could be a side effect. I hope that he will be able to assure the Committee that


arrangements will be made in the figures to avoid such a misunderstanding.

Mr. Golding: Before I explain my reasons for advising the Committee to reject the clause perhaps I should point out that I am not used to proceeding at such a speedy pace. I sympathise with the desire of hon. Members to see more regular information about the Government's employment measures. It would not be appropriate to give such information in the monthly unemployment figures. I am well aware of the point made by the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe). We certainly do not want to twist the figures. I am arranging for the figures on employment measures, including job release, to appear in the Department of Employment Gazette each month. That will make it possible for the hon. Gentleman to add the existing figures to the unemployment figures.
I turn to the new clause. If the intention is to add figures on job release to the monthly unemployment figures published by my Department, first in the regular Press notices and a little later in the Gazette, I must point out that the effect of the amendment would be wider than that. It would apply to the publication of unemployment statisics by the Secretary of State in any form. Although the hon. Gentleman probably is not aware of it, I must also point out that if the clause were carried, on each occasion that the Secretary of State mentioned the unemployment figures he would be forced to add the job release figures. We do not want to impose that burden on him. We do not wish to suggest to people who are receiving the job release allowances that they should be regarded as unemployed under another label. We believe that such people are not more "unemployed" than are retirement pensioners. We appreciate that that point could be argued, and that is why we are prepared to publish all the figures in the Department of Employment Gazette.
In any case. we would not want to be prevented from announcing the unemployment figures if, by some mischance, the job release figures were not available. For these practical reasons, we ask the hon. Gentleman not to press the clause, because we shall meet the spirit of his

proposals by making all the figures available in the Gazette.

Mr. Hayhoe: I am grateful to the Minister for his proposal to publish the figures in the Gazette. However, will he think again about the question whether they should go as a note in the monthly statistics issued by his Department? It is those monthly statistics and the Press notices that are seen generally to be an important measure by which the employment situation may be judged. The monthly figures already give statistics relating to short-time working, adult students, and other matters. The reason that they are recorded is to give a complete picture and to make possible a comparison with what has happened in the past.
Will the Minister consider whether it would be possible to give this information in an additional note on the monthly Press statement? It has been suggested that one of the reasons behind this Bill is to find some way of making an artificial reduction—a cosmetic exercise—in the unemployment figures. I am sure that that is not the Minister's intention, but that this Bill is being presented because it contains a great deal of merit. If the Minister will give further consideration to the provision of a note, as I have suggested, I am sure that it will meet our requirements.

Mr. Golding: We shall examine the matter carefully, but there are many difficulties. If we do as the hon. Gentleman asks we shall be pressed to include yet other figures, related to training and many other matters. It could open the floodgates to requests for many other statistics to be included in Press notices, because, in general, Oppositions wish to focus on the number of unemployed.
However, I shall examine the matter and write to the hon. Gentleman. We shall be prepared to meet him to discuss the matter. We do not want to dodge any issue.

Mr. Hayhoe: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Bill reported, with amendments; as amended, considered.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

6.40 p.m.

Mr. Madel: We have had a constructive debate, but it is a pity that more hon. Members have not taken part, especially because since the Bill had its Second Reading there have been further difficulties with the unemployment figures and our economy. However, we are grateful to the Minister for the many ways in which he has met us over the question of parliamentary control and regular debates. We are glad that he is to have further discussions on the pension position and that the Government will seriously consider putting the job release figures in the monthly Press release from the Department. The Minister has been conciliatory and helpful to us. We wish the Bill well.
Nevertheless, we hope that our economy will improve and that the Bill will slide into abeyance, which must be the Minister's fervent hope. Whether the Government have to slide into abeyance as well, to get our economy moving again, is another matter, and I would not wish to be contentious. I leave the Minister with the thought that it all depends whether any constructive ideas emanate from the Dispatch Box on 29th March.

6.42 p.m.

Mr. Golding: I think that the progress of business shows that it is better for me to be in government than in opposition. I thank all hon. Members who have taken part in the debate for their constructive proposals. We shall look at them in detail. We desire a situation in which special measures are not necessary.
We hope that many more people in work will take advantage of the scheme. Many people who have done a lifetime of hard graft and toil deserve an extra year in which to put up their feet. We should like them to take advantage of the scheme, thereby allowing some younger people to have the jobs that they unfortunately cannot have at present.
We are grateful to the Opposition for the way in which they have approached the Bill. We hope that it will be a great success.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — PREVENTION OF TERRORISM

6.44 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Merlyn Rees): I beg to move:
That the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976 (Continuance) Order 1977, a draft of which was laid before this House on 24th February, be approved.
I must confess that I am tempted to move the motion formally, so that we can all go home, because there does not appear to be anyone present who is interested in the business. I see that one hon. Member has now entered the Chamber, so I shall have to stay. I hope that my hon. Friends will note that if I had been too clever by half I could have moved the motion before they came into the Chamber, and all would have been over.
However, the purpose of this order is to extend for a further 12 months the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976. The legislation on which this order is based was passed nearly a year ago and it will expire, if not renewed, on 24th March. The original legislation was passed in 1974. It stems almost completely from the activities of the Provisional IRA, which has been responsible for murder and mutilation in Northern Ireland and in this country. It is due to the IRA's activities here that it is the only proscribed organisation in the order.
The House will need no reminding of events in Woolwich, Caterham, Birmingham, on the M62, and in Balcombe Street. In the last year there has been a series of incidents. On 27th March 1976 an explosion occurred at the Ideal Home Exhibition in London, where 85 people were injured, one of whom subsequently died. That was the last incident in a series of terrorist attacks which took place in London and the Home Counties in the early months of 1976.
In May 1976 a series of eight letter bomb attacks against well-known people and several Civil Servints took place. Fortunately these attacks did not result in any casualties.
After this there was a period of comparative calm, and there were no more terrorist attacks during the remainder of 1976. During that period of calm the police still had a great deal of work to do,


and some of that work may have prevented action during that time.
However, the terrorists returned early this year. On 29th January about 14 devices exploded in shops and other premises in the Oxford Street area of London. Although there were no casualties, extensive damage to property was caused. I am sure that the House will have noticed how promptly the police responded to the resurgence of terrorist attacks. I should like to pay tribute to the police now.
About five days after the incidents in London an explosion occurred in the Department of Employment offices in Liverpool. In a subsequent search a substantial quantity of material was found in a house in Liverpool. The find included more than 101b of high explosives, 17 incendiary devices assembled ready for use, seven electrical detonators for bomb-making materials, a 38 Smith and Wesson revolver, and 24 rounds of ammunition. Two men were detained after these discoveries since when they have been charged in connection with them.
It must be clear to the House that in the 12 months since the Act has been in operation—

Mr. Stan Thorne: With regard to the Liverpool incident, how many people were subsequently arrested and held, and for how long?

Mr. Rees: I could certainly find out and let my hon. Friend know. I was cautious not to comment on the precise case in Liverpool, tempting though it is, because it is sub judice and two men are before the courts. At that time, when I was Home Secretary, there was no doubt that the police were anxious to make sure that, whether in Liverpool or London, we were not at the outset of another spate of attacks. Two had taken place in Liverpool and London, and it was the responsibility of the police to act in a protective way to make sure that there were no killings. Ten pounds of high explosives, 17 incendiary devices, seven electric detonators, and so on, are not there just for fun.
It will be clear to the House that in the 12 months during which the 1976 Act has been in operation terrorist

activity in Great Britain has continued, although it has been at a much lower level than in 1975 and the early part of 1976. The Provisional IRA is still in being. Its army council still issues its orders to its brigades in Belfast and Derry and to its battalions. It is an army structure, with army ranks. Its members use a stock of firearms and make bombs with sophisticated timing devices. We know of the deadly toll in Northern Ireland. The same Provisional IRA has active service units under the battalions in Ireland. We know from Balcombe Street of active service units in this country.
The aim of the Provisional IRA is to drive the British out of Ireland. It is an aim which illustrates its lack of knowledge of Northern Ireland. Nevertheless, as long as it has this aim it will aim at targets in Great Britain. It will send couriers here. It will form and re-form active service units. I say to my hon. Friend that even when there is no action active service units do break up and re-form. This goes on all the time, and it is something that I and the police must take into account.
We should not underestimate the organisation of the Provisional IRA, because in guerrilla warfare strength is on the side of smallish groups acting in that way. It is not the normal sort of war.
Last year the ending of special category after 1st March posed the Provisional IRA a dilemma, as did the success rate against it in this country. Before I left Northern Ireland I learnt that in the autumn there was to be a campaign against alleged ill-treatment of IRA members in prisons and that there had to be incidents in prisons which would spark off action in order that the so-called ill-treatment could take place. Before I became Home Secretary I was expecting that' to happen.
We are dealing with a para-military force, not with people who simply have political ideals and ideology. Incidentally, the claims for prisoners to go back to Northern Ireland are taken in the context of that date of 1st March last year. People returning to Northern Ireland would have special category status and would be not in proper prisons but in the open compounds which are a feature of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Martin Flannery: My right hon. Friend has spoken of a para-military force. Will he confirm that there is more than one in Northern Ireland, and that we are dealing with terrorism from not one but two sides? So far my right hon. Friend has mentioned only one side.

Mr. Rees: Of course, because I am dealing with this part of the United Kingdom. There was one occasion just before my time in this office when another organisation was involved, but I am dealing with the Provisional IRA on this side of the water because it is the only organisation proscribed under the legislation. If at any time any of the other organisations were seen to be a danger on this side of the water I should have no hesitation in proscribing them, as in Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend must believe me. I am not unaware of the other organisations, of which there are large numbers, but I am dealing with the danger on this side of the water, because my legislation is in general concerned with that. Exclusion is a different aspect.
I have carefully considered the need for this legislation and I am convinced of its necessity. It is right that the balance between civil rights and the need for the protection of our citizens should be weighed up and discussed. There is a balance to be struck, and my judgment is that the continuance of the Act is a necessity. I ask the House to agree that this is the right course.
I come to one other aspect to which I should like to return in another context later. When I went to Northern Ireland three years ago, as Secretary of State, I looked very carefully at the emergency legislation there, together with wider issues, as I had concluded in opposition that there was a need for a wide investigation into a number of issues besides the law. I set up the Gardiner Committee to consider, in the context of civil liberties and human rights, measures to deal with terrorism in Northern Ireland. I did that against the background of 50 years of emergency legislation, including the Conservative legislation concerning the courts, based on Diplock. The Committee also considered the way in which detention was handled, how ex-detainees should be brought back into the community when they left prison, and so on.

It was not concerned only with the law The report of the Gardiner Committee, which happened to confirm my own view that my aim should be to end detention led to new legislation.
There is no case for such an investigation in this country. I understand that there is concern about the workings of the Act. I shall try to deal with some of those matters and then listen carefully to the debate. If there is a feeling that there is a need for an investigation into some aspects of the Act, though not a Gardiner-type investigation, I shall carefully consider that matter.
I come now to the Act and the uses that have been made of it. I shall give cumulative statistics covering the 1974 and 1976 Acts and the use my predecessor and I have made of the powers in the legislation since 24th March 1976. These statistics include all cases up to 1st March.
I deal first with exclusion orders. An exclusion order may be made against a person who, I am satisfied, is or has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism or who is attempting or may attempt to enter the country for the purpose.
My predecessor and I have made 95 exclusion orders in total, of which 20 have come under the 1976 Act. In addition, six orders in total and two under the 1976 Act have been made by the Lieutenant-Governors of Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man, as they are entitled to make them.
Nineteen people in total and two under the 1976 Act against whom orders have been made have made representations against the orders, and five of the orders in these cases, all under the 1974 Act, have been revoked. Four orders have been revoked for other reasons.
Eighty-one people in total and 20 under the 1976 Act have been removed, 58 in total and 14 under the 1976 Act to Northern Ireland, and 23 in total and six under the 1976 Act to the Republic of Ireland. Eight orders in total have not been served. In five of these cases, the person concerned was and is believed still to be outside the United Kingdom. In two other cases the persons concerned were charged with murder and my predecessor revoked the orders before they were served. In the remaining case, the person concerned was returned to


Northern Ireland on a warrant and my predecessor revoked the order before it was served.
Most people know how exclusion works, but I want to make one or two points about it. The making of an exclusion order is an executive procedure exercised by the Secretary of State, but the information on which an exclusion order case is based may be very sensitive. In some cases revealing the nature of the information to an alleged terrorist or his friends would enable him or his friends to deduce the sources of information. Informants would be at risk. That is the basic reason why a person cannot be told the case against him.
Clearly a purely executive procedure such as this does not have the public safeguards inherent in judicial procedures. The Prevention of Terrorism Act incorporates two safeguards. First, the test on which the Secretary of State may make an exclusion order is a very stringent one. He has to be satisfied in each case that the person is or has been concerned in
the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism, or …is attempting or may attempt to enter Great Britain or Northern Ireland with a view to being concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism.
Secondly, the person concerned may make recommendations to an independent adviser and the Secretary of State is bound to refer any case not considered frivolous to an independent adviser.

Mr. Ron Thomas: I refer by right hon. Friend to Section 7 of the Act. Is it not a complete charade that someone can make representations to the Secretary of State or to an adviser without having any indication whatsoever of the evidence against him? In the case of one of my constituents even the adviser had no indication of the evidence against my constituent.

Mr. Rees: I have no doubt that my hon. Friend has been in touch with my Department about that case. I was dealing with cases where a person has been involved in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism, and I shall come in a moment to what I can do in individual cases. But I do not

find that the adviser system is a charade. It is not a judicial system. That is why I am making clear that it is an executive procedure. It is not a judicial procedure and should not be discussed as one. The exercise of this system depends on the quality of the advisers, and 1 pay tribute to the work of Lord Alport and Mr. Ronald Waterhouse, QC.
It is inappropriate, for the process of considering representations, to be in any sense public or judicial, for the reasons that I have given. Persons objecting to exclusion may seek the advice of their legal adviser in framing objections to the order—and I know that some hon. Members have views on that subject. I am prepared to consider this matter.
I turn next to the powers of detention exercisable under Section 12 of the Act, which replaces Section 7 of the 1974 Act. This power enables the police to detain a person who is reasonably suspected either of having commited an offence under the Act or of being concerned in terrorism. The period of detention must not exceed 48 hours but can be extended by me for a further five days. The extended period enables the police to make comprehensive inquiries and to carry out forensic science tests.
A total of 796 people have been detained under this power, including 253 under the 1976 Act. In 250 cases—49 under the 1976 Act—my predecessor and I authorised extensions of detention. There have been full discussions between Home Office Ministers and the police about the criteria on which I would be prepared to authorise extensions of detention.
A special office has been set up at New Scotland Yard to process police applications from forces throughout Great Britain and to help in securing common standards. These arrangements have proved helpful, and neither I nor my predecessor have had to refuse any formal police applications for an extension of detention, although there have been some cases where, following informal discussions, an application has not been put forward formally.
My predecessor undertook that he or the Home Office Minister of State would personally see each application for an extension of detention. He added that the only exception was in cases where it


might be necessary for the official to make a decision overnight when the Minister could not be reached immediately, and the matter would then be referred to the Minister next morning. This undertaking has been fully adhered to, and since I came to the Home Office I have tried to see every case. For the record, there was one occasion when I had 'flu and I saw the application after the event, but that was the only one.
That procedure is one about which I feel very strongly. My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) will know that I and my predecessor were actually putting people in prison. I saw every one of those cases myself, because I have always thought that if something is being done in my name I must see beforehand that it is being done in the correct way.
People may also be detained at ports by examining officers, either on arrival or departure. A total of 1,637–765 under the 1976 Act—have been detained under this power.

Mr. George Cunningham: My right hon. Friend recognises, does he not, that a person held for up to seven days in England and Wales can be held incommunicado because of the proviso to the Judges' Rules about not impeding investigations. But in Scotland a person cannot be held incommunicado. He has a statutory right to have access to a solicitor, which, a fortiori means the ability to tell his family where he is. If it is a perfectly proper and safe thing to have north of the border, how is it that we cannot have it south of the border as well?

Mr. Rees: My hon. Friend is quite properly raising the question of the use of the Judges' Rules not only under this legislation but in general. I shall willingly look at that. I have been looking at this matter in general terms, not in terms of legislation, because there is concern about the Judges' Rules. Again, this is something to which I intend to refer later.
I come next to the charges that have been brought for offences under the Act; three people have been charged under the 1974 Act and eight people for offences arising out of the 1976 Act. A further 98 people in total—21 of them under the 1976 Act—have been charged with offences following detention under the Act.

This 98 includes eight people charged with murder, three with attempted murder, 12 with conspiracy to cause explosions, seven with unlawful possession of explosives, six with conspiracy to possess or procure explosives with intent to endanger life, and six with offences under the Firearms Act 1968.
So far I have not been able to give figures about convictions. To do that would involve following through individual cases. However, I should like to give this information, and I have asked the police to consider whether it can be provided.
As Northern Ireland Members will recall, we had this problem in Northern Ireland under a different arrangement where everything went through the Department of Public Prosecutions. We had the problem that we were giving out at weekly security conferences the number of people charged but not the number of people convicted, and because there is often a long delay—quite properly in most cases—between a person being charged and being convicted any figures that one might have had actually referred to something that happened in an earlier period. I believe that during my time this was corrected. In a different context I want to do the same thing here. I shall do all that I can to ensure that the figures are available because I think that they are important.
Charges by themselves are not enough. The number of charges is of course only a small proportion of those detained under the Act. Fortunately we are not looking for large numbers of terrorists. The problem is that a very small number of people can put on to the community an enormous amount of havoc and kill many people.
The recent trial of the four people arrested at Balcombe Street made clear how much murder and destruction four people can create. I can express it in this way because it was before my time —on the night of the Balcombe Street siege and before that, anyone who thought that that number of police turned up because they just happened to have been in the area will have got it wrong.
A great deal more happens before an incident of this kind than most people—including myself until a year or two ago


—completely understand. There is more to it than the actual number of people charged. When one is dealing with a para-military terrorist group one has to take account of other factors.

Mr. Tom Litterick: What my right hon. Friend says is interesting but not surprising. After all, the police are trained and expected to be able to anticipate crime. Will my right hon. Friend make it perfectly clear whether or not he is saying that the success of the police in the case that he mentioned arose from the powers that have been conferred on the police by the Act that we are now considering?

Mr. Rees: I am not so sure that the police in general are trained to anticipate crime. If that were the case, a great deal of crime would not happen. With terrorism, however, it is often more important for the police to build up information because they are dealing not simply with drugs or theft but with people dying.

Mr. Litterick: Answer the question.

Mr. Rees: I will answer it, but my hon. Friend used the word "anticipate", and this is an important factor to take into account. I know that the information that the police build up in this way is absolutely vital. I am not prepared to say exactly that there was a connection between the powers we are discussing and the case I referred to. The information is collected by the police over a period of time, and that could not be done without this legislation. If we did not have this legislation we would be putting at risk the lives of people, and I am not prepared to do that in the light of the judgments I have to make.
The police have to look for a needle in a haystack. The important test is not whether large numbers of people are charged, or even convicted, but whether the Act helps in detecting, arresting and convicting those who are responsible for or are planning major terrorist offensives. It is the case, but probably more so in Northern Ireland, that the planners of terrorist acts are in many respects more important than the people who carry out the crimes.
In my view the fact that detentions under the Act have resulted in charges of

murder, and so on, shows that the Act is being used for its proper purpose. Neither I nor the police would claim that this could not be done without the Act, but without these clear powers the police might have had difficulty in obtaining the necessary information in time or even at all. Time is of the essence in com-batting urban terrorists.
I know now, as I did not know before, that the police spend months and even years building up a case against a person involved in drugs offences, for example. The time element is not important because ultimately it is the strength of the case that the police have to take to court that matters. That is not so with murder and killing. It is no good waiting for a murder to take place so that one can catch the offender and take him to court. Prevention of the offence is vital.

Mr. A. J. Beith: I am sure that the House recognises the seriousness of the right hon. Gentleman's point. Is he going so far as to say, however, that the value to the police of the detention provisions is in gathering information and that, therefore, if they are to be effective the police must surely be seeking to detain those who are not concerned in the preparation or instigation of terrorism? If those people were so engaged that would give rise to charges against them. The right hon. Gentleman is suggesting that there is a much wider purpose—perhaps a necessary one—which does not appear on the face of the Act and has not so far been advanced by the Government.

Mr. Rees: It is not a question of picking up people ad lib. People are involved in the way that I have described. A careful study of the wording reveals that the Act covers this point adequately.
The House has been kept informed throughout the year of the use that has been made of the legislation. The facts have been given by means of answers to Questions tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara). I understand that my predecessor made clear that if at any time my hon. Friend were to cease that practice, and if no other hon. Member were to take it up, he would make other arrangements to ensure that the information continued to be made available. I


repeat the undertaking given by my predecessor because the Questions perform a vital service and give information upon which people can base judgments about the working of the Act.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: Will my right hon. Friend confirm, however, that the Questions are not planted?

Mr. Rees: If my hon. Friend means whether I asked him to put them down, he is absolutely right in saying that I did not. If he is asking whether I am pleased that he puts them down, he would be absolutely right in assuming that I am.
The basic need for the legislation lies in the continued threat of the Provisional IRA's activities in this country. There is other legislation for Northern Ireland for dealing with proscribed organisations. It is the Government's duty to reach a considered judgment on the threat without being unduly swayed by the events of the preceding few days or even weeks. That is not always easy, but we have to make a judgment about maintaining our protection at a high level and ensuring that the powers under the Act remain necessary.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Surely the right hon. Gentleman will agree that the Act covers Northern Ireland and that it gives powers to exclude from Northern Ireland to Great Britain a person who does not belong to Northern Ireland but whose terrorism is not necessarily IRA terrorism.

Mr. Rees: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and I do not blame him for making the point because it is important for Northern Ireland. The point I was making is that a major part of the Act is concerned with Great Britain and that there is separate legislation for Northern Ireland. Exclusion, however, is for the United Kingdom as a whole.
In taking the judgment about the need for the powers I have taken into account not only the extent of terrorist activity here, but the continuing threat. That is a judgment that all of us have to take, but it would be a brave person who believed that there was no chance of further terrorist activity on this side of the water.
I have had regard to the statements by prominent members of the PIRA. I am

careful about taking such statements at their face value. There is no doubt, however, that the PIRA has publicised its intention to continue the campaign of violence here. The Sunday Independent contained a report on 19th September 1976 which said that
the Provisionals would start the violence again in Britain with what it described as a devastating effect if they deemed it opportune".
A leading member of the PIRA in an interview broadcast on French television on 14th February made remarks in the same vein. Three days after the Oxford Street bombs at the end of January a statement issued under the usual pseudonym of the PIRA claimed responsibility for the attacks and added that the Provisionals' campaign in Great Britain and Northern Ireland would be maintained and intensified.
To use a phrase that has been heard here before, why look in the crystal ball? This is what the PIRA says it will do, and I have to take that into account. It has shown that it means it. Hon. Members may make what they will of the PIRA's statements, but its generally threatening approach is a significant factor.
I have taken police advice about the Act, and both the Commissioner of the Metropolis and the Association of Chief Police Officers have advised me that the Act should be continued and that it has made a major contribution to their efforts in dealing with terrorists. The advice of the police is important, but it is not the only consideration.
I have reached this judgment after giving full weight to the civil liberties case. These powers—with a maximum of seven days' detention without trial and exclusion procedures—certainly entail an infringement of civil liberties. The powers are acceptable only on an emergency basis. I would be pleased to see our society sufficiently free from the Provisional IRA at present and perhaps from other groups in the future to enable me to dispense with these powers.

Mr. Phillip Whitehead: Accepting what my right hon. Friend has said on account of the threats by the Provisional IRA, which will continue as long as that organisation is in being, I still maintain that there is a case for saying that renewal of the powers should


be on a six-monthly basis rather than annually. Since the original legislation was for six months, maximum parliamentary scrutiny is necessary.

Mr. Rees: I was coming to that point. When I was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland I reduced the period of renewal of the Northern Ireland Emergency Powers Act 1973 from 12 to six months in accordance with a view that I expressed in opposition. But that is very much more powerful legislation—the Army is involved and the power to detain is much more comprehensive than it is in this legislation. If the Northern Ireland legislation was at this level I would not have felt so strongly about the six-monthly basis.
There is a particular problem here with a period of six months. It would have to be four months, because six months from now takes us to September, and with any luck the House will not be sitting then. But the point is that under the Northern Ireland legislation I locked up 400 people myself. When a Minister is locking up people it is very important that the House should have a chance to scrutinise the legislation at six-monthly intervals. I do not think that it is so important in this instance but it is not something that I have an absolute view about.
I shall explain the purpose of the Draft Prevention of Terrorism (Supplemental Temporary Provisions) (Amendment) Order, which comes under a different procedure. It will be discussed in the House only if it is prayed against, but it is relevant to this debate. It is not a major change, but it is important. Article 13 of the main order that we are discussing is concerned with control at the ports. Under this article the examining officer at a port has the power to control the embarkation and disembarkation of passengers to and from Ireland and he can require that details of the passengers and crew be supplied. I found that doubt has arisen as to whether these controls can be treated as standing arrangements or whether they will have effect only if invoked on every separate occasion that a ship or aircraft moved from or leaves for Ireland. It was regarded that the control was a standing arrangement but the proposed amendments will establish this beyond doubt.
The change in port controls involves landing and disembarkation cards. I have discussed this matter with the police and in the light of experience I have decided that it would be desirable to make a direction under Article 8, which I shall do. The cards will be overprinted with a reference to the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act and thus the authority for the cards will be clearer to passengers who hitherto have been in some doubt about whether the Act empowered the use of cards. I emphasise that this does not mean that cards will be used everywhere. The chief officers of police will continue to make their own decisions on whether it is helpful to use cards, and that depends to a large extent on the scale and flow of passenger traffic. Where cards are used the authority for them is much clearer.
The police are under no illusion that the value of cards is limited. People can fill in the cards falsely, and no clear evidence of identity is contained in them. Corroborative information on identity will continue to be required as permitted under Article 6.

Mr. Powell: I want to get this clearer still. I understand that at the moment completion of the cards is not mandatory on passengers because the form is not prescribed under the relevant order. Is the Home Secretary saying that that situation will be changed by his new order or will it remain the same?

Mr. Rees: What it means now is that the authority will be clearer for the passengers to see. Some passengers may have been in doubt about whether the Act empowered the use of cards if that was so desired by the police concerned.

Mr. Powell: Although the use of cards will in future be specifically empowered under the Act and there will be no doubt about it, it does not follow—so I understand—that the use of cards will be made mandatory by the prescription of the form.

Mr. Rees: It is not a matter of being mandatory. If the police decide to use the cards they are covered by the legislation. That we thought to be the situation before, but apparently there was some dubiety about it. I have gone into this in great detail because I know that the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr.


Powell) is concerned about it. If he has any particular point in mind perhaps he will make it and I shall reply to it later. This is not a major change. It is simply a matter of clarifying something that was thought to be in doubt.
In my view this legislation is vital. There is a threat from a para-military force that operates easily over here on soft targets. There is a very high clear-up rate by the police in this country which has been aided by this Act. I will listen very carefully to what is said about the legislation tonight but there is no question of ending it while the Provisional IRA or other groups are engaged in violence.
I have no reason to think that the police have misused the powers under the Act but I will consider ways of looking at its workings before its renewal next year. In no sense am I saying that there will be a Gardiner-type report but I will consider ways of doing it which might lead to amendment of the legislation. If in this way I can reassure those who are not supporters of the IRA but who are concerned about civil liberties, I will consider it.

Mr. Robin Corbett: Is my right hon. Friend saying that there will be some kind of inquiry into the workings of the Act? If so, will he consider publishing the findings—not all the evidence—of that inquiry?

Mr. Rees: Yes, I understand my hon. Friend's last point, because there is no point in simply reassuring myself. I am talking about aspects of the Act and its working which, after three or four years, could be looked at again. In no sense would the information be given to the outside world about this, but I will consider the points that have been made because I want to reassure people about this, and I consider that it is my responsibility to reassure them.
I have to balance civil rights against death and destruction. I cannot say that there will be no more death and destruction in this country: I wish I could. At the moment the threat is from the Provisional IRA. As long as it is from that organisation or any other, I have a duty, with the police, to protect the public. This legislation has been passed for that purpose and I commend the order to the House.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths (Bury St. Edmunds): The Home Secretary's speech has underlined two things. The first is that he takes seriously his accountability to Parliament for the great powers that the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act has provided. I am grateful to him for that and personally I trust him completely in this if not all other matters.
The second thing he has made clear is that political terror has now arrived in the United Kingdom. It has, sadly, existed in Northern Ireland for some time, but he is right to say that we shall have to get used to the fact that it now exists here, on the mainland, as well. In saying that, I am all too conscious of the fact that, over recent years, while many of us have been aware, through the television and the newspapers, of the horror in Northern Ireland, it was not until these killings and murders arrived on this side of the water that many of us came to understand the ordeal which our fellow citizens in Northern Ireland have endured for so long.
I have only one or two simple points to make. One is that the task of countering terror will increasingly concern Home Secretaries. That task is partly a matter of law—I should like to say a word or two in a moment about this particular law—but it is mainly a matter of practical counter-terrorist action. The Home Secretary has fairly said that that burden lies primarily on the police. I of course declare an interest in that I have a connection with the police.
Three things, basically, are required. First, the best possible intelligence, wherever possible in advance of the terrorist action. Second, sufficient counterforce. Third, the necessary legislation, some of which inevitably restricts civil rights, so that when counter-force and intelligence are brought to bear we may be reasonably certain that the defects of the law will not enable the guilty to escape.
On the first of those, intelligence, I have recently attended a conference of leading counter-terrorist police officers from Germany, France, Belgium, Holland and of course the United Kingdom. They described in considerable detail some of the terrorist incidents with which they have had to cope. What came through very


plainly was that intelligence about possible terrorist action is not confined to any one nation, that the activities of the potential terrorist extend far beyond the boundaries of the United Kingdom or any other country and that it is of crucial importance that the police services should have the best possible sharing of intelligence information. I put this suggestion to the Home Secretary, without elaboration—that there could be better ways of exchanging intelligence on these matters among the professional police services at least of the nine countries of the European Community.
Some efforts have been made in this direction. Indeed, it was the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor who attended a conference in Brussels on this matter not so long ago. The preparatory papers were good, but comparatively little has been done. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to have another look at what is being done to improve the intelligence on terrorism between the member countries of the EEC. I believe they could assist us greatly, if they were encouraged to do so, in our efforts to counter the terror of the IRA.
My second point relates to counter-force. Most of the other European countries have elite police and paramilitary organisations. We on the whole do not. I am very glad that we continue to root our police service in the people of our country. I should very much oppose the creation of any paramilitary police service in Britain because, as yet, I believe that we do not need it and that the police in Britain should be the same wherever they are.
Many have suggested that the Special Patrol Group of the Metropolitan Police is in some way a paramilitary organisation. It is no such thing: it is simply the ordinary London bobby rostered into a group for a short period. Once he has done that duty, he goes back on the beat. It is important to say that, because there have been suggestions, following Balcombe Street and many other brave and effective actions of the Special Patrol Group, that it is somehow a separate and specialist paramilitary force. It is no such thing.
None the less, in the process of applying sufficient counter-force to terrorist

activity it is of crucial importance that the police should have the necessary force at their disposal. From time to time, that means arms. As the Home Secretary knows better than anyone here, the weaponry of the police already has been increased. There may soon be a need for them to have more sophisticated weapons. Indeed, I believe that a committee is now considering this in respect of the London police.
Then there is the need for the closest possible liaison between the police and the Army. We have organised these arrangements better in this country than anywhere else. We have done so largely because the British Army has a long tradition of policing activities and it understands the need to operate in difficult situations with a minimum rather than a maximum of force. In Northern Ireland the Army has carried out its immensely difficult duties with a forbearance, a patience and a restraint which deserves admiration from the whole world. I am certain that the British Army and the police in this country, as has been seen at London Airport and on various other occasions, have now developed a method of working together which, although it can always be improved, has regard to the need to apply counter-force with the minimum of violence and the minimum of restriction of civil liberty. That is no mean achievement.
No one can possibly deny that it is distasteful) for this House to restrict the civil liberties of our people as the measure unquestionably does. But it cannot be said too often, clichéthough it may be, that there is no freedom without order, there is no liberty without law and there are no civil rights without a police service rooted in the community which is juridically impartial and above all which is politically neutral.
I believe that the order and the original Act that it seeks to continue are regrettably necessary in our present circumstances. Indeed, I believe that if we had not had that Act over the past year or so, there would certainly have been more casualties, at least among the police. No one can say that the Balcombe Street success arose from the Act—it would be silly to say that—but it is certain that if the police had not had these powers, they would have been less able in many circumstances to assemble that advance


intelligence and to deploy their limited resources in such a fashion as to be able to obtain the maximum results for their efforts.
Hon. Members opposite, who are as concerned as I am about the intrusion into civil liberties, should give thought to the lives of our police. We ask them to take on this dangerous and disagreeable job for us. Let us not place their lives more at risk by failing to have the courage to maintain on the statute book legislation which the police, who are on the sharp end, believe to be an indispensable aid to their difficult task.
Regrettably this Bill is necessary. I was not sure exactly what the Home Secretary meant at the end of his speech when he was throwing out some kind of sweetener to his hon. Friends. I hope that he was not saying that he proposes some kind of inquiry into the workings of the Act that would involve the police or, indeed, any other counter-terrorist organisation, to satisfy himself and his officials in a manner that could become public. It is extremely difficult to define the frontiers of what needs to be kept secret and what needs to be made public. I understand the Home Secretary's dilemma. That is why in present circumstances we have no choice but to make a judgment of the Home Secretary himself.
At present I am engaged in a serious quarrel with him. To a large extent he has lost the confidence of the British police. He has mishandled his recent negotiations over pay and conditions. But, having considered the whole question of the anti-terrorist Bill and the whole question of the accountability of the Minister for the infringement of civil rights, the House has no choice but to judge whether it can trust the right hon. Gentleman. In this particular matter, I do. I am therefore glad to support the Bill.

7.42 p.m.

Mr. Phillip Whitehead: I agree with the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) in one thing —that the legislation can at best be described as a detestable necessity. Those of us who are concerned with civil liberties must regret the need to cut back on that area of freedom in the way that the legislation does.
We have been asked to renew the legislation for the fourth time for a further period of a year. We have had some assurances—although they are not sufficient assurances—about ways in which the House, Parliament and the wider public that we represent can satisfy themselves about the way in which the legislation is operating. My right hon. Friend addressed himself to those in the House concerned for civil liberties—and they are not all on the Labour benches—who detest the IRA, those who have violence at their beck and call and who have attempted to destroy the forces of law and order in this country and in Northern Ireland. That includes not only the IRA but the para-military Protestant organizations which are equally condemned.
My right hon. Friend said that those who destest terrorism can take comfort from the concern that he has shown about the Act and its operation. He has gone some part of the way to indicate that that concern might be translated into more material action before the House has to discuss the legislation again, if it has to do that.
There are three or four areas of major concern of which some of us believe that my right hon. Friend should take note with a view to an inquiry. Many of us on this side of the House are looking for an inquiry. It should be a limited, departmental inquiry which will provide advice to the Secretary of State and the House before we come to consider the legislation again. It should not be a Gardiner-type inquiry because that would be too wide.
In November 1974, two and a half years ago, when we first had to consider the legislation, many of us, certainly on this side of the House, pointed out the areas in which it could be misused. We said that the legislation could be a catch-all for people who were suspected not merely of terrorist activities in connection with the IRA or linked organisations but with other activities that were considered inimical by the police. We said that the Draconian powers—and that was the phrase used by the then Home Secretary—could lead to great injustice in individual cases. That has been discussed in debates in the House, notably by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas).
This possible misuse, some of which can now be substantiated, must be taken with the alarming possibility that the legislation might stay on the statute book as long as there is any threat of violence from the IRA, whatever the potential level of urban terrorism is in the country, and might remain in effect as long as the emergency legislation that existed between 1939 and 1950.
We must discuss how the legislation has worked. About 95 per cent. of those who have been pulled in under the legislation have been kept incommunicado and then released without any charge being made. Of those that have been charged, comparatively few have been charged with activities that are linked to the purposes of the legislation. That must concern us.
In some instances the legislation has been misinterpreted in the way in which it has been used by the forces of law. I need go no further to illustrate that than today's issue of The Guardian in which a former Scotland Yard detective —hardly a potential IRA suspect—complains of his detention for two days under the legislation by the Liverpool police. The former detective, who is 57 years old, said that he was arrested with two Irish friends as they came off the Dublin Ferry after a touring holiday in the Republic. He was picked up at the docks by the Special Branch and the three men were taken to separate cells. One of his friends, who suffers from a sugar deficiency, collapsed in his cell because the police refused to supply him with his required daily medicine. They were not allowed contact with their families but were assured that contact would be made by the police. When they were released, they found that that had not been done.
Many people such as Mr. Evans, who makes the complaint, could be in the same situation. In this case, he was possibly arrested because he had crossed the border and the number plates of his car had been taken by the police and passed on.
There are a number of other examples that could be given. There is concern about the way in which the Act is interpreted and some examples have been given by the National Council for Civil

Liberties. One of those is the case of Mr. O'Neill, a full-time official of the Student Christian Movement, who was arrested when commuting between Dublin and Bristol. There is also the case of a number of Community Service volunteers who were attending a conference and who were arrested at Heathrow Airport. There are enough examples of that kind to indicate the area of concern. I go no further than that.
Many of us on this side of the House who raise such points, as we have done also in previous debates, find ourselves under the odium of those who say "If you are against that kind of misuse of the legislation, it means that you are for the IRA." Nothing could be further from the truth. We detest the kind of thing that the IRA stands for as much, if not more so, as we do the vile and odious methods that the IRA and the paramilitary organisations use. But two wrongs do not make a right, and we should look hard at a situation in which many people have been gravely inconvenienced and have had their civil liberties abused, I believe, by an overenthusiastic interpretation of the legislation.
Again, many of us believe that in some of the areas where the police have been most effective—and I share entirely the tribute paid to them by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds—that effectiveness cannot be prayed in aid of this legislation. The hon. Gentleman was fair enough to make that point himself. The ultimate success of the Balcombe Street operation was 100 per cent. It was a brilliant police operation. But I submit that that brilliant operation would have gone on whether there was a prevention of terrorism Act or not.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: May I put this point in the hon. Gentleman's mind? Very often, what this Act provides is a benefit to the police in the deployment of resources. Every time there is an incident like the Balcombe Street siege, they have to take large numbers of people away from ordinary civil policing, and hon. Members then complain that their constituents are not getting the cover. Frequently, because this Act exists, the police are able to use their limited resources much more economically, and therefore there is a sideways benefit which comes


in cases like the Balcombe Street siege because the Act exists.

Mr. Whitehead: That is the hon. Gentleman's point of view. It is not necessarily mine. I think that the effective mobilisation of police manpower does not depend upon the particular powers of detention that they have under this legislation. That is as far as I would take it, but I think that the hon. Gentleman will see the reason why many of us are concerned about other uses to which this legislation has been or might be put.
I think that we should now ask my right hon. Friend to go further. He has already told me, in response to an intervention, that he will not consider having this legislation renewed for a period of six months only. I made that point not because six months is some kind of magic figure and one year is a dreadful extension but precisely because, in the present state of urban terrorism, it might be possible to take another look at what we all agree to be a detestable measure in six months' time.
Whatever the threats and fulminations which may come from Press conferences in Paris, or the so-called brigade commanders of this preposterous IRA in Dublin or elsewhere, as long as the IRA exists there will be threats of violence. As long as there is one befuddled brigade commander issuing statements, he will be threatening violence. If we are to wait for the day when the last IRA man has said that there will be no more violence against the British occupying forces, or against those whom the IRA opposes in Northern Ireland, we shall have to wait much longer for this legislation to be removed from the statute book than we did for its predecessor to go.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: But it is not just a matter of what is said. These so-called preposterous brigade commanders in Belfast shoot and kill every day. They are not preposterous, and I have never found them to be befuddled.

Mr. Whitehead: They are befuddled in their ideas. I think that few of us would disagree with that proposition. This legislation was introduced for the United Kingdom in the wake of the Birmingham bombings. It was introduced because it seemed at the time to outraged public opinion that there was

coining to the mainland a wave of terrorist violence so extraordinary, so extensive, that only the most extraordinary measures to counter it could be expected to have success. That is not exactly the situation today. There may be a further urban terrorist onslaught on the British mainland. We pray not. But I am saying that it is possible now at least to consider a more speedy process of scrutiny and, if necessary, renewal of this legislation than was the view of Mr. Roy Jenkins a year ago and is the view of the Home Secretary today.
I believe that there should be an inquiry now into the working of the legislation of the kind I have outlined. A number of points have been raised already in the debate, and others will come from my hon. Friends. I do not wish to anticipate them. But I want to give a small example. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) intervened to ask about the Judges' Rules and why it was necessary to have in England and Wales a set of procedures entirely different from those in Scotland. This is exactly the kind of procedure that we should be investigating and about which my right hon. Friend should be advised, as well as looking at how the Act has operated in practice in terms of people who have been run in, particularly those who have not been charged but released after a period in detention because no evidence was found against them.
If my right hon. Friend is able to say to us, at the end of the debate, that he is prepared to have such an investigation, many of us who go so far as to say that, faced with something as evil as the IRA, we see circumstances in which this is a detestable necessity, might be prepared to welcome his move towards us and not vote against the renewal of this legislation.

7.57 p.m.

Mr. A. J. Beith: I begin by agreeing in part with the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) but disagreeing with him in part. I agree with the case for the six-month renewal. I argued for such a period on an amendment I proposed to the Bill originally. We are fortunate tonight that the arrangement of business has allowed us a longer debate on the subject than


we would have had otherwise. All we would have had under the normal procedures would have been one and a half hours. We have a little longer tonight. One and a half hours a year is precious little time in which to debate such major issues as civil liberty and terrorism itself. We should be reconsidering this legislation more frequently than we are allowed to do, and devoting more time to it.
But I disagree with the hon. Gentleman on the implication that there is anything remotely temporary about terrorism. I have said at every stage of this legislation that I do not believe that terrorism is temporary, either in the Northern Ireland context or more generally. I believe that Northern Ireland terrorism and Northern Ireland-based terrorism are with us for some time to come, because. whatever we are able to achieve, and whatever the people of Northern Ireland are able to achieve in rebuilding their community, there will be some who will have an interest in using violence to stop it, and that it will spill over to the rest of the country. We are clearly faced with a long-term problem.
If we are to solve that problem, and also the problem of the habits and techniques of terrorism being spread, we have to make sure that we make arrangements to deal with these and other groups of terrorists. I do not rest my case on the argument that we are dealing with a temporary phenomenon. We cannot say that the threat has receded. We shall not be able to say in six or 12 months' time that the threat has receded.

Mr. Whitehead: That is not my case either. I was saying that we should not wait for repeal of this legislation until all violence has vanished from the other parts of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Beith: I am glad to have that comment from the hon. Member for Derby, North. I took the hon. Gentleman to be suggesting that although the trend might continue the violence itself would recede. I am glad that he is as realistic as I feel we have to be in these matters. Let us not fool ourselves by supposing that we can have satisfactory temporary provision legislation. Let us not fool ourselves by supposing that these are necessarily short-term incursions into civil liberties. We must face some of the

harsh realities, and that must lead us to consider this legislation in a rather different light.
The question must be whether measures of this sort are so helpful in preventing the sort of terrorism that we have been facing and will continue to face that they should remain on the statute book. Let us not pretend that the threat itself will disappear so quickly that the necessity for such legislation will go out of the window with it. I believe that the threat will continue. Therefore, we must ask again and again whether certain incursions into civil liberties are justified. Do they significantly aid the police, or is it the case, as I suspect it is in some respects, at least, that the impressive successes of the police in dealing with terrorism on this side of the water have been achieved largely with the normal powers that the police have enjoyed over many years? That is the question to which we must address ourselves.
There is considerable doubt abroad about the extent to which the police are dependent on the Act for the work that they need to do.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: When the hon. Gentleman asks that question, has he asked the police themselves? Does he know what their view is? The Home Secretary gave it. The police want it.

Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman is in a rather special position. He is able to put one kind of official view to the House. The Home Secretary has put forward the view of the chief constables and the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis, but policemen vary in their views. That is bound to be so. It is unfair to the police to put them on the spot and expect them to make public judgments and public statements about legislation that they have to carry out. In this House we must ask questions and seek to answer them. To some extent I accept that there are things that cannot be said clearly and openly. It would be wrong to expect the police to become involved in the political question of how far we are entitled, in representing the British people, to abrogate civil liberties to assist them in their work. We listen to the police individually and we listen to their organisations but as legislators it is for us to make the final judgment.

Mr. Sydney Bidwell: The police are not competent to judge the area of counter-productive political consequence that flows from having such a wide net available in their operations? Surely they are not competent to make that judgment.

Mr. Beith: I do not agree that the police are not competent. I know of many policemen who have to make just that sort of judgment, but it is a fact that it is easier for us as Members to draw the attention of the community to such considerations. It is not an area in which we should expect the police to have to make public comment. We should not call upon them to do so.
I mention, first, the proscription of organisations. Although it appears apparently one of the severest in terms of incursion into civil liberties, it is in reality one of the less significant provisions. It went into the legislation originally because of the deep public revulsion caused by the public parading and public identification of organisations that were self-confessed perpetrators of terrorism and violence. Some of the organisations were banned in Northern Ireland and in the Republic of Ireland. We have had occasion to criticise the Republic from time to time but it seems unreasonable that we should allow in our midst the public parading of organisations proscribed on both sides of the border on the other side of the water.
I do not find the proscription provisions the most worrying parts of the Act, although I should like them removed from the statute book. However, as long as the IRA is prepared to engage in the depravities of terrorisms, I am certainly not deeply worried by the fact that it is a proscribed organisation.
When we come to exclusion orders, we enter a much more important area. This is the most Draconian part of the legislation. Part of it represents a perhaps necessarily ham-fisted and crude alternative to what any sovereign Government would normally be able to employ. I refer to the ability of a sovereign Government to close their frontier to a potential source of terrorist and to deport to that other country those whom they have good reason to suppose are engaged in terrorism. Part of the whole problem of our

relationship with the Republic is the practical difficulty of closing the border. We must admit that the exclusion order provision arises in part from that.
There are those whom we would no doubt seek to deport to the Republic. When they can be shown to have origins in the Republic. However, the reality of the situation is that movement across the border is extremely difficult to control. Deportation does not have the practical reality that it would have in another situation. We end up moving people from one part of the United Kingdom to another, which is a profoundly worrying thing to have to do.
Exclusion is an unattractive procedure and the appeal procedures under it are even more inadequate than those that have concerned us in the recent Agee and Hosenball cases. We have referred to the appeal procedures in detail and argued them in detail at earlier stages of the legislation now being considered. In some cases exclusion orders may have been necessary and may have helped in the prevention of terrorism, but I cannot avoid coming to the conclusion that they are crude instruments. The reality of movement across the border and across the water is such that they are of limited value, although I do not wish to rule out their value in some instances.
I now turn to detention powers, especially in relation to Great Britain and the way in which they are used in Great Britain. I share the concern that has been expressed about whether they are of value in dealing with terrorism and whether they are really necessary. We are bound to be concerned by the discovery that over 90 per cent. of those detained have been released without any charge or exclusion order being made against them. Of those who have been charged, many have faced charges on offences unrelated to terrorism such as drug offences and offences of wasting police time, which have a certain irony about it in the circumstances. There have even been five cases of conspiracy to defraud the Inland Revenue. I wonder whether they were in the building trade. It is a curious chain of circumstances that such charges should result from detention legislation that has been defended in strong terms as being a necessity for dealing with terrorism. It is an extremely worrying feature.
I am still not convinced that many of these matters could not have been dealt with under the existing powers of the police. When the Home Secretary dealt with this matter he opened up wider concern. The burden of his argument—it is a serious one—that the gathering of information depends to some extent upon this process, upon the detention of people for a period of 48 hours and for the longer period of five days that the right hon. Gentleman can authorise. If that is so, we are surely going beyond what was originally intended by the Act even though we may be justified in doing so. The Act envisaged the detention of any person who
is or has been concerned …in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism".
It is to be supposed that in many cases in which such people are detained charges will ensue and that not merely information will result. I find it puzzling if we are to suppose that the most effective means of obtaining information about offences like the Balcombe Street seige, is by the taking in of suspects. If we take in suspects the word gets around, people go underground and the raid is not carried out and something else is done instead.
My knowledge of police work is, of course, not as good as that of the Home Secretary or the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths). I can see some instances when the taking in of suspects is effective but I can see very many others in which the information gathering process does not depend upon the provisions in the Act. I am sure that a great deal of the terrorism successes of the police would not have been achieved if their information had had to be gained solely by these procedures and not by others that give less of a tip off to those involved.
The absence of the right to see a solicitor when detention is taking place remains a matter of some concern. I listened with care to the Lord-Avocate when he spoke with confidence and without doubt about the continued application of the provision in Scotland that gives access to a solicitor, which is normal and which causes no difficulty or harm to the police. There was no implication in anything he said that it was causing difficulty in Scotland. Therefore, I do not

see why we cannot do something in that direction in England and Wales. For the Home Secretary to say that the matter is under consideration is not good enough. The issue was raised strongly at the time that the legislation first came before the House and we have had a clear 12 months in which to make some progress.
I know that the right hon. Gentleman takes the view that it is something that should be considered as part of the general issue of the Judges' Rules in respect of all legislation. I do not share that view. When we have multiplied several times over the period of detention we surely have a special duty to ensure that families are able to be told unless there are strong overriding reasons not to do so and that access to a solicitor is available. Surely we should ensure that there is communication during the period of detention.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: May I ask the hon. Gentleman a question on that point? I am truly interested. I was making a point about the Judges' Rules and said that they apply to the people who are detained in the same way as to people on normal charges. When the hon. Gentleman says that people have not been allowed to see solicitors, is he making that as a general point or does he have any particular case in mind?

Mr. Beith: I was making the general point that several provisions of the Judges' Rules, including that one, are not necessarily available to people detained under this legislation. The Minister will recall that I sought, by amendment, to make it a feature of the legislation and to write the Judges' Rules into the statute.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I shall come back to that point later. My understanding of the matter is that an undertaking was given by my predecessor due to concern about the Judges' Rules. It is contrary to the information that I have been given that there have been cases arising from the Judges' Rules. I understand that they do apply in exacly the same way. The hon. Gentleman, who shows great knowledge of this, speaks as if that is not the case with regard to detention. Has he any knowledge of a chief officer not carrying out the instruction that has been given?

Mr. Beith: There is much concern, not simply in relation to this legislation, that


the facilities of the Judges' Rules are not made available to all persons detained. There are specific cases that have been raised by the National Council for Civil Liberties that show that they are not being followed.

Mr. McNamara: Will the hon. Gentleman, for the Minister's benefit, reinforce the point about access to legal advice under these circumstances where the period of detention has been increased 250 per cent.—from two days to seven days? In that period there has been no access to solicitors. We need advice from the Home Secretary for the 243 people for whom detention orders were issued and any such requests for them to have access to solicitors.

Mr. Beith: The advice that was given to me prior to the debate was that the Judges' Rules have not been applied in all circumstances. If the Home Secretary can give any assurances to the contrary they would be welcome, but such assurances would be questioned in a number of quarters. It would be surprising if the Home Secretary were able to say that he was satisfied that both in this case and in police procedure generally the Judges' Rules were being observed for all types of detainee. It would be a remarkable new development if he were able to give such an assurance.
There are other features of the legislation that do not give rise to particular difficulties, such as include the ban on the collection of funds, and the tighter checks on arrivals and departures through ports to Northern Ireland and the Republic. Most people regard these as a much more limited incursion into civil liberties, that can be clearly justified in the present circumstances.
It is the key features to which I refer, and which I come back to, that are particularly important. There are well-documented allegations of abuse and genuine doubts about the use of and necessity for legislation. I was, therefore, pleased when the Home Secretary seemed to indicate a willingness to hold some form of review of the effectiveness of the legislation.
The Home Secretary can surely recognise from today's debate that it is difficult on the Floor of the House—as the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds

pointed out in an intervention to my speech—to make a serious assessment of the difficulties that the police face in particular cases and for the necessity for the application of legislation. I would welcome a review, not on a scale that would waste a great deal of time for the police involved but one carried out by people who carry sufficient respect to enable us—hon. Members, and the public generally when the report is produced to form a clear judgment on how far the Act is proving necessary.
I agree that the Gardiner model is not necessarily the best, but we might use three Privy Councillors, as is done in security matters. We could look at the possibility of having two judges or QCs to carry out the investigation, not on a large bureaucratic scale but employing people of considerable repute and relevant knowledge to inquire into the working of the legislation and to report on it.

Mr. Ian Mikardo: What the hon. Gentleman says is extremely important, and I go along with it apart from one small but important point. He says that the inquiry should be held only into the question whether the Act is necessary. But that is not the real question. We have to assess the balance of the advantage and disadvantage of the benefits accruing from the Act and whether they are enough to justify the intrusions into civil liberty and intrusions into people's private lives caused by it.

Mr. Beith: That is precisely the question to which we in this House must address ourselves. The difficulty that we face is in asking the related question of how far the Act is necessary and justified and testing that against our judgment. We, as legislators, must make the judgment. We should then consider, in the light of the report, whether the necessity for the legislation justifies the particular incursions into civil liberty involved. We can make that judgment. The difficulty that we have had is in fairly and correctly assessing the needs that the security forces face in the task that we have given to them. We have had to take on trust statements that have been made by the Home Secretary. No hon. Member is suggesting that we cannot quite trust the right hon. Gentleman. There is a great


deal of trust in the Home Secretary's personal integrity.
But one must consider that one is bound to see these things from a different viewpoint depending on one's rôle. We give the Home Secretary the primary charge of the protection of the rights and liberties of the people of the country and he is bound to lean heavily upon the advice of the security forces. We cannot take everything that he says without challenging it. We would be greatly aided in that task when the legislation next comes up for renewal if we had before us an independent and reliable review. If the Home Secretary could give that assurance later it would make a considerable difference to the attitude of myself and my hon. Friends.

8.17 p.m.

Mr. Robin Corbett: I thank the Home Secretary, in opening the short debate, for making clear —if it needs making clear in this House or outside—that those who have from the beginning expressed concern about the provisions of the Act are in no way pro-IRA. We are concerned, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) has just said, to weigh up and assess whether the balance of advantage that has been given by the Act over the past three years has justified the undoubted incursions and intrusions into civil liberties. That is the point in a nutshell.
We accept that at any time these balances have to be weighed up and judgments made, but it is astonishing that if one old lady with an unpaid rate bill is ever threatened with going to gaol, someone from the Opposition will be asking for a Standing Order No. 9 debate or tabling an early-day motion, yet tonight, when we are discussing an Act under which more than 2,250 citizens of the United Kingdom have been arrested, there seems to be scant concern.
I said "arrested" because we have enabled the police, for the first time in my knowledge and certainly in recent law, to arrest people for questioning. This is not asking people "Come down to the station please, and answer a few questions"; it is a power of positive arrest, and, as other hon. Members have

already said, it is not a matter of being arrested for merely 48 hours on the signature of the Home Secretary. It is arrest and detention for a period of seven days. The family of a man so held may not even know where he has gone, and they could be scouring the hospitals.
I know of one such case. The family had no idea where someone was. He had disappeared off the face of the earth. A person arrested in this way is unable to contact even his family or have contact made to reassure them and to let them know—I was going to say that he is in good hands but he would of course, be in good hands—that he had not done a bunk or had a serious accident.
Reference was made earlier to the number of people detained under the Prevention of Terrorism Act and what happened to them subsequently in terms of charges. I congratulate the Home Secretary for saying honestly that at present no list is kept of the convictions against those figures and that he will have a look at this, because it is extremely important. I could have some fun going through the list of what some of these people were subsequently charged with, but I do not wish to be frivolous. From my knowledge of some of the charges that have resulted from arrests under the Act, the legislation seems a mighty great sledgehammer to get people for such things as wasting police time, wrongful possession of a motor vehicle, and Inland Revenue offences.
We are as guilty in the House as many people outside. We take civil liberties far too lightly. We climb on platforms and proclaim our belief in individual and collective freedom, but we behave in a different way in the House and it is not always as a result of a considered judgment.
Under the Act, it is an offence not to pass on to the police information about acts of terrorism in the United Kingdom connected with Northern Ireland affairs. It substantially erodes the right of silence. I know that it sometimes gets in the way of police inquiries in this connection and in other areas, but it is an important part of the protection that individuals have in this country and we have given it away.
Having allowed it in this Act, how do we know who will be the next Home Secretary who will argue in the House that we should do something similar in another context? That is the danger once we have opened this door.

Mr. McNamara: I am not certain how the right of silence has been eroded by the Act. Evidence will still have to be produced to show that information has been withheld. This would not be incumbent upon the accused. Will my hon. Friend explain why he believes that the right of silence has been eroded?

Mr. Corbett: I accept what my hon. Friend says. Perhaps I should have phrased my remarks more carefully. We have created an offence in respect of which not passing on information can result in a person's being charged. I accept that the onus is on the prosecution to prove that a person knowingly had the information and did not pass it on. I did not mean to overstate the position, and I am sorry if I did so.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I understand that the hon. Gentleman is claiming that a precedent has been created that might appear in other Acts. I do not know why he said that. If he possessed information pertaining to possible terrorist acts involving the killing or maiming of innocent men, women and children, would he not feel that it was reasonable to make it an offence for such information to be withheld? If he withheld it, would he not become virtually an accessory to the murder of innocent people?

Mr. Corbett: I agree with what the hon. Gentleman says and I imagine that every other hon. Member would share that view, but we must make up our minds whether a person has the information. The fact that a police officer says that I knowingly have information about terrorism and have not passed it on does not make me guilty. Hon. Members will remember that when the Act first came before the House it was proposed that the mere possession of a piece of paper relating to, for example, proscribed organisations would be an offence. The then Home Secretary was persuaded to remove that provision. It could affect any one of us, because we often receive unsolicited pieces of paper and circulars through the post.
By virtue of the position that he holds, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has great trust and responsibility placed in him on behalf of the Executive. He also has an enormous amount of power. I am not suggesting that he would be tempted to misuse it. He makes his judgments on the basis of information that he is given, but it is legitimate for us at least to advance the argument, which I consider respectable, that after three years of the operation of the Act, which is detestable to many of us on the Government Benches, there is a case for saying that an independent inquiry should be held into its workings to weigh up the balance of advantage and disadvantage.
This suggestion of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) is surely worth looking at. It could be conducted by persons of repute and known independence and standing to satisfy not only hon. Members, important though that is, but the public who have so far gone along with the risks being taken in this legislation.
Such an inquiry should not be seen as putting the police in the pillory. It is our responsibility that the police have these powers. We vested them with that authority for reasons that appeared right and proper to a majority of hon. Members. There is no question of the police being in the witness box.
We have a right to ask a group of independent people to look at the Act and see whether it has worked as intended. I know of a case in which someone was picked up at a port on his way back from a fairly regular visit to Northern Ireland. He tells me that he was detained for 48 hours and questioned for a total of only 20 or 25 minutes, in two sessions, solely about his trade union and legitimate political activities. The Minister who replied to a similar debate last year said that if I sent him details it would be looked at, but unfortunately a uniformed police officer went to the man's lodgings and his place of work. Naturally his neighbours and workmates were concerned why a constable should be calling on the man and he decided, because of this disturbance, to have nothing to do with that procedure. I regret his decision but his case could be put to the sort of inquiry that I have suggested. That man


feels passionately that his rights were invaded. [Interruption.] It is no good hon. Members shaking their heads. He would have had the police around at his lodgings. None of us minds a copper knocking at his door or calling at the place where he works—

Mr. Mikardo: I do, by golly.

Mr. Corbett: —provided that he has a logical reason, because the neighbours would not give him a second look knowing what we do for a living. However, in the case of an engineer and a copper at the factory gate saying "Please may I see Mr. Brown?", that raises suspicions, particularly if the person concerned has an Irish accent. People put two and two together and make five before one can do the arithmetic.
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will acknowledge that this is an area in which there arises at least the possibility, from the figures of those arrested and detained, and the wide net that the police are allowed to use for fishing, frankly, for anything that they like, that there may have been some occasions on which the police have trawled in waters far distant from terrorism and for purposes that are an interference in basic political rights or legitimate trade union rights. There is a possibility of that. It is something on which many of us want an assurance.
As I have said, I say that in no way wanting to put the police in the dock or under the microscope. We have had this exceptionally repressive piece of legislation for three years now. These powers were described by the Home Secretary at the time as Draconian. It is quite right that after three years of operation of the Act we should take a step back and charge those in whom we can put confidence and respect with trying to satisfy us that the Act has been working in the way in which it was intended to work.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to respond to that and to say that should such an inquiry be set up, at least its recommendations would be published —although we accept that probably not all of the evidence could be published. I hope that he will say that if the inquiry made recommendations he would take those into account if, regrettably—as

seems likely—he had to ask next year for another renewal of the provisions.

8.31 p.m.

Mr. William Craig: I can understand those who have spoken from a desire to preserve civil liberties. All hon. Members would like to do that. However, we must also recognise that we have a duty to deal with those who put the civil liberties of the innocent at risk.
While there are aspects of these provisions that I would tend to question, nevertheless I must say to the Home Secretary that in this House we have reason to be grateful for the efficiency of the security forces in Great Britain, as a part of the United Kingdom. I only wish that I could say unreservedly the same thing concerning Northern Ireland. How much of the success in Great Britain depends upon the provisions of the Act is a matter for speculation. Nevertheless, all who have an interest in how to combat terrorism will know that the capacity to interrogate is of paramount importance. The question before us is what cost we are prepared to pay for the right to interrogate suspects.
Terrorism, as we have known it in recent years throughout the United Kingdom, has become the most vicious and heinous of all crimes. Happily, those citizens who live in Great Britain have not experienced the worst of it. I and those hon. Members from Northern Ireland have seen the utmost cruelty perpetrated in the name of a so-called political cause, in which law is not recognised and people take unto themselves the right to pursue their cause outside the law. There is contempt for law, and for all for which law stands.
When one thinks of the innocent women and children, not to mention male adults, or even the security forces doing their duty in preserving law and order, it is very hard to have any sympathy for those who do that sort of thing and cast aside the processes of law.
The main objection that I have to the provisions before us is that I find it rather difficult to accept that a Minister of the Crown, with expert knowledge and reason to believe that he has a suspect involved in terrorism, can exclude a suspect to another part of the United Kingdom and exclude him to a part of the United Kingdom in which people are


less amenable to the law—namely, Northern Ireland. Looking at the operation of the Act, we must question how many killers have been sent by a Minister of the Crown from this part of the United Kingdom to that part which I and my colleagues represent. That is a matter of very grave concern.
I propose to support, for a short time to come, this sort of provision. However, in doing so, I must say that I would expect from the Government a much more realistic effort to defeat those who resort to such cruel terrorism. Our criminal law used to regard as the absolute horror the premeditation of a man who sought to kill by the use of poison. How much more objectionable it is to think of the killer who quite indiscriminately takes an explosive package into a crowded populated area and leaves it to kill whoever might unhappily be there at the time? I can think of no worse crime.
It is the duty of all of us in this House to support the Government, and the forces of law and order, in whatever way we can to defeat those who put themselves outside the law. I am aware of no evidence which indicates that the police or anyone else have used these powers outside their endeavours to contain the action of terrorists. I for one would be the first to rise if I thought that these techniques were being used to deal with ordinary crime. But this is the sort of special crime with regard to which the State must be prepared to take special measures.
I am sure that my colleagues would agree that we tend to be cynical with other hon. Members in this House in their approach to terrorism as it happens in Northern Ireland when compared to the reactions when it happens in other parts of the United Kingdom, namely, Great Britain. All of us can remember the horror and exasperation as a result of the bombs in Birmingham. Most hon. Members of this House would have freely strung those people up to the nearest lamp-post. Yet as the dust settled, and they were removed from the pressure of that sort of horror, they began to afford themselves a luxury that innocent people who are at risk cannot afford.
As we are not under the immediate threat of those who would take our lives, or the lives of those near and dear to

us, I would counsel hon. Members to think deeply. I hope that this part of the Kingdom will be spared the sort of thing that we in Northern Ireland have to go through. I am conscious that unless the Government show the will, and take on to themselves the powers, to deal with this modern crime that has developed in our midst, many innocent people will be at risk.
We can find faults with this legislation. but this is the time to think of those who may suffer. Recently we had the firecracker attack in London from the IRA. What if those had been real bombs, the sort of bombs that explode from time to time in Northern Ireland? We should think of those people who are in no way connected with the political issue, like the business men and others, who die day by day in Northern Ireland. Do we want to help that sort of terrorist organisation on its way? Should not we support the Government in using all the powers that we can to defeat that sort of thing?
Civil liberty is something to be prized. It is something that from time to time has to be defended with the use of force and not by mere platitudes. We are not dealing with criminals who attack the rule of law in the ordinary sense. We are dealing with a tiny minority of people, with no political mandate from any useful quarter, who put themselves outside the law and defy the authority of the State. Let us show some of the ruthless ness that they are prepared to wage against the innocent of our country.

8.40 p.m.

Mr. Ian Mikardo: Hon. Members on both sides of the House have pointed to the key question before us. The key question is not whether we find terrorism abhorrent, because we all do. The description by the right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig) of the horrors that go on in his part of the kingdom moved all of us. But that description, with respect, was not relevant to the judgment which we have to make about the Act. We have to judge the balance of advantage and disadvantage. No one disputes that there are disadvantages in the Act. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made that clear in strong terms. Most political judgments—for that matter, most other judgments—are a


balancing of advantages and disadvantages of different options which are open as courses of action.
The major job of the politician is, in the trite phrase, to get the greatest good for the greatest number, because he cannot get 100 per cent. good for everyone. Therefore, we must ask: what advantages is the community getting out of this Act? What price is it paying for those advantages? Which is the greater? Is the game worth the candle?
The right hon. Member for Belfast, East knows the answer because he has already carried out the inquiry for which some of my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) have asked. The right hon. Gentleman has worked it all out and has come to the conclusion that the balance of advantage is that we must have the Act.
I have not had the advantage of access to the information that the right hon. Gentleman has received. No doubt the inquiry, if we have it, will ask him to cough up all the information at his disposal. My guess is that he spoke with his heart, not with his head, and that he knows no more about this matter than the rest of us. Therefore, he is in no better position than any other hon. Member to guide us on the balance of advantage and disadvantage.
Some hon. Members have said that the erosion of civil liberties is a heavy price to pay in a democratic society. There may be circumstances in which it is justified, but it is a heavy price to pay for a number of reasons. One is that seldom in history has the erosion of civil liberties been static. Almost always, when trenching into the principle of the rights of the individual, the temptation to move a little further and a little further still is irresistible. That is why we have the almost laughable situation of defining tax evasion as terrorism. The only terrorist crime committed by some people who have been proceeded against under the Act has been tax evasion. Their only destructive weapon has been a ball point pen or perhaps an india rubber. That shows how easily one can slip down this slippery slope.
Heaven forbid that I should compare my right hon. Friend the Secretary of

State, whom I love, with some of the horrible people in other lands who carry out a similar job to his. But every regime which proceeds against the liberty of the individual does so on the ground that the security of the State demands it. Even the most extreme totalitarian illiberal regimes put forward such pleas. I am not making comparisons, but I am saying that many crimes can be committed not merely in the name of liberty, but in the name of the security of the State.
That is the general point. Let us examine the particular point. What do we mean by the erosion of civil liberty? A couple of thousand people have been arrested. All but a very small proportion have been released as having no guilt whatever. The overwhelming majority of them are completely innocent. They have been arrested and abstracted from their families. The families do not know where they are.
It involves a man who is expected home from a job in Belfast or in Dublin, and his wife and children are expecting him to supper and are waiting to welcome him home. But that man does not come home today, tomorrow or the day after, or even three or four days after that. His family has no way of finding out where he is. The man in question is unable to do anything about the situation. He cannot obtain a lawyer to advise him about his civil rights.
I repeat that a couple of thousand people are involved in this exercise. The overwhelming majority of them are innocent. Only a small proportion are ever charged and—although my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has been good enough to say that he will obtain the figures —only a fraction of that small proportion are ever convicted.

Mr. Craig: The hon. Gentleman suggests that we have put a couple of thousand people in prison. Will he explain how that has happened, and what part the courts have played in that operation?

Mr. Mikardo: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that
Stone walls do not a prison make, Nor iron bars a cage".
If people are put in a building from which they cannot escape, and are kept there by


force, so far as I am concerned that is a prison, whether or not it has stone walls or iron bars. A couple of thousand people have been detained, robbed of their liberty, against their will, and have proved to be innocent. It has been established that there has been no justification for such action against such people. That surely is a very big price to pay, and we have to weigh whether whatever benefits we have achieved as a result of that exercise justifies that price. But we cannot weigh it because we do not know the benefits.

Mr. Bidwell: Is it not a fair bet that action by the anti-minority putting people in Long Kesh, and all the rest of it, in Northern Ireland has been counterproductive and has caused many people to become attracted to the campaign of terrorism as a consequence?

Mr. Mikardo: That may be so. I do not speak with any intimate knowledge of events in Northern Ireland. I therefore speak about them with deference, diffidence and humility. I am talking about the general principle of the facts which we know and those which we do not know. I repeat that we do not know what advantage, if any, there is in this interference with civil liberty.
My right hon. Friend is, as we all know, a man of great probity. If he is satisfied that the advantage is worth it, we should all believe him. But that is not the rôle or the tradition of this House. This House exists to check upon the Executive, whoever its members may be and whatever admiration we may have for them. If we do not do that, we might as well not have a Parliament. We might as well just have Ministers and say "They are good chaps. We like and trust them, and they can do as they like." However, I cannot take this.
We have a duty, because each one of us represents about 60,000 or 70,000 people, to satisfy ourselves on the balance of advantage and disadvantage. Evidence has been adduced to suggest that there have been gross defects in the operation of the Act and that it has not worked out as intended. If that is not a case for examination, I do not know what is.
I wish to raise a question that has not been raised so far in the debate, except in an intervention by my hon. Friend the

Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery), which I do not think my right hon. Friend effectively answered.
The Act should be called not the Prevention of Terrorism Act but the Prevention of IRA Terrorism Act, because it discriminates between terrorism carried out by the IRA, which is repulsive, and terrorism carried out by other organisations, which is equally repulsive.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough asked why other para-military organisations were not listed in Schedule 1. My right hon. Friend replied that he was concerned about terrorism on the mainland and that the IRA was the only terrorist organisation operating there. That was how he justified the fact that the IRA was the only organisation in the schedule. The Act is not concerned with terrorist organisations operating only on the mainland. It states:
The Secretary of State may by order add to Schedule 1 to this Act any organisation that appears to him to be concerned in terrorism occurring in the United Kingdom and connected with Northern Irish affairs".
No one here is saying that Northern Ireland is not part of the United Kingdom. Is my right hon. Friend saying that there are no organisations other than the IRA that appear to him to be concerned with terrorism occurring in the United Kingdom? We all know that there may be only one organisation which appears to him to be connected with terrorism in Birmingham or Caterham.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: There is far more Draconian legislation in Northern Ireland under which a variety of organisations are proscribed. The Act has a general heading because of my exclusion powers in the United Kingdom as a whole. There is only one body proscribed in the early part of the Act because, as I explained, there is no problem from other organisations. Some people may say "Not yet". But that does not affect my exclusion rights. During the last three years a small number of members of Protestant para-military organisations have been excluded to Northern Ireland. I should prefer to leave the matter at that general answer.

Mr. Mikardo: I take my right hon. Friend's point. The exclusion order Part, Part II, is not concerned with Schedule 1. Therefore, the point I am making does


not apply to Part II, and I do not raise it in connection with Part II. I raise it only in connection with Part I. if it is right that Part I is intended to apply only to terrorism on the mainland, why does not Section 1(3) say so? It could easily have done so, saying "occurring in England, Wales or Scotland" instead of "in the United Kingdom". This will not do.

Mr. Flannery: I intervened in my right hon. Friend's speech because, although there have been no terrorist acts by other organisations on this side of the water, many of us, including myself, have been threatened. On advice from the Special Branch, I changed my telephone number, and it has been changed again since. These are realities. The Act should refer to any para-military terrorist organisations, not just one side, because the threats do not come only from one side.

Mr. Mikardo: I do not want to detain the House unnecessarily, and therefore I shall not comment on what my hon. Friend has just said.
My right hon. Friend said that he was prepared to consider ways in which there might be an examination of the Act. That is not good enough. The case for examining what value has been gained from the Act in return for its cost demands much more than that. From my point of view it demands, first, that there will be an inquiry. Secondly, to quote the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, the Liberal spokesman, it should be an independent inquiry, carried out by persons who have had no connection with the operation of the Act and no connection with the Home Office or the Northern Ireland Office. Thirdly, enough of its conclusions should be published to enable the House to judge what value has been derived from the Act compared with the cost it has imposed on hundreds of innocent people.
I understand, of course, that one would not want to publish some or perhaps all of the evidence. Some of the conclusions might not be helpful to the main balance-of-argument question. But it is essential to publish enough to enable the House, and hence the country, to judge whether the game has been worth the candle. I have no evidence that the Act has led to

the apprehension of one terrorist who would not otherwise have been apprehended. If there is any hon. Member who possesses such evidence, I shall be grateful for the information, but I am sure that there is not.
The fourth thing I want to hear is not only that the conclusions on the balance of argument will be published, but that they will be taken fully into account in considering the future of the Act, and whether it has a future at all.
If the Home Secretary found it possible to go as far as that I think that some of us might be willing to damp down our feelings on the Act, to the extent of biding our time before expressing our views about it in the Lobby. But anything less than that would be insufficient to achieve that end. I am not just offering a bargain—that would be demeaning both to my right hon. Friend and to me.
I feel deep concern about this subject, but we do not have the information to judge whether that concern is right. If we obtain that information this evening's debate will have been worth while. If not, those who have grave reservations about the Act have no reason for not expressing those reservations in the only way that is open to them.

9.1 p.m.

Mr. John Farr: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) does not seem to think that the order is desirable and is apparently threatening to vote against it, should it appear another time. The hon. Gentleman said that about 2,000 people had been questioned under the order but only a few had been proceeded against. But surely, if the few who were proceeded against would not otherwise have been unearthed, if the hon. Gentleman is sincere in his wish to see terrorism stamped out he must agree that it is worth while to put this Act into effect.
It appears that the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow is particularly unfair when he criticises the order for referring only to the Provisional IRA and asks why this is so. Surely the hon. Gentleman does not need to be told by anyone in the House that the Provisional IRA is the only international or national terrorist group that has executed the most


terrible crimes on the mainland of Great Britain as well, and has threatened to continue those crimes. As such, the Provisional IRA should be properly leant upon by the implementation of this order.

Mr. Mikardo: I read in my newspapers from time to time about things called secular killings, which I understand refer to cases in which a man is murdered for no other ground than that he goes to a different Church. That strikes me as not merely a crime but a blasphemy. As I understand it, both Catholics and Protestants have been murdered, but I do not believe that the IRA murdered the Catholics.

Mr. Powell: Oh, yes!

Mr. Farr: I turn now to another aspect of the order. Some of us would like to see, instead of this annual debate, the Government taking action to introduce into the House a Bill to implement the European convention on terrorism. We should like to see this probably within the next 12 months and before the order is next due for renewal. We have a fairly easy timetable now, and a lot of time available.
The European convention on terrorism was signed by Britain earlier this year and was also signed by all the members of the Council of Europe, except for Malta and Ireland. Having signed it, if the Government have every intention of enacting it in this country—we can assume that they have, from what Ministers have said at Question Time—what is to prevent them from introducing a Bill incorporating the convention before this order comes round again for renewal?
If necessary, to the extent that the convention does not embrace the necessary provisions—even though it covers 16 statutes—any Bill could be extended to cover the rather narrow area dealt with by this order. I can see no reason why the House should not be spared the blessing of this annual exchange, which generally occupies only 1½hours, by having on the statute book an Act incorporating the convention on terrorism.
The convention has been signed by all countries except Malta and the Republic of Ireland. Ireland refuses to sign it because, I understand, the convention conflicts with its constitution. But there is no reason why Ireland should not sign

it with a special proviso added to the effect that the convention shall apply except in respect of certain provisions. By putting its national signature to the convention Ireland would demonstrate a certain amount of good will and good faith in tackling what should be an international problem.
I hope that the Government will take steps to introduce the convention at an early date. A possible vehicle for it would be the Criminal Law Bill, which is proceeding through another place and which I understand could be adapted here to include the necessary statutes in the convention. That would have the effect of giving legal force to the convention at an early date.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) has spoken strongly and with authority on the role of the police and the very difficult and delicate task that they do so well. Both sides of the House will commend them for their fortitude. However, there is another equally difficult but probably far more delicate task, which is never referred to in this House. I refer to the work of the prison officers in the seven dispersal prisons in Britain. They have to assimilate the terrorists with the ordinary civilian prison population.
This is one of the most difficult jobs that one could imagine. It must be appreciated how difficult it is to assimilate with the ordinary prison population a number of terrorists who do not accept that they are not regarded as political prisoners and who refuse to join in with the normal prison routine. It is as well that we should remember the prison officers when we discuss this order every year.
My last request is one that I expect the Minister to reject. Will the Government make a noble attempt to define terrorism as a crime, possibly in the Criminal Law Bill? It is a difficult definition to frame.
Although I deplore the necessity for the continuance of the order, I shall help as best I can to speed it on its way.

9.10 p.m.

Mr. Gerard Fitt: With the experience that he gained in Northern Ireland, the Home Secretary will be all too aware of the great emotions that can be aroused in debating this legislation—both in Britain and in Northern


Ireland. He will also be aware of the very strong reservations that were voiced by many Labour Members when the Bill was orginally enacted, and again on every subsequent renewal. I have heard many contradictory arguments advanced this evening, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will clarify the position.
I fully support the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo). If there is to be legislation of this kind—and I hope to have the opportunity to vote against it tonight—it should not be so selective against the IRA. When the original Bill came to Parliament I moved an amendment providing that other organisations such as the UVF, the UFF and the Red Hand Commandos also should be proscribed organisations. My right hon. Friend has said that the IRA in the main is involved in the violence in Britain.
Let us not forget that there have been occasions when the UVF and the UVA have been involved in acts of terrorism in this country. There was the case of the bar in Kilburn being blown up by members of the UVF who were flown from Glasgow especially. We should also remember that arms, ammunition and explosives have been found under the control of Loyalist para-military organisations in Britain. Then there was the appearance of a UVA leader on Scottish television when he said that his organisation was engaged in making a lot of parts that could be assembled into machine guns and sent to Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom and the so-called Loyalist organisations should be proscribed as long as they are engaged in such terrorist activity.
The Home Secretary said that Section 11 of the Act made it an offence not to disclose information to the police if one was aware of someone being engaged in terrorist activities. I would be very surprised if any prosecutions ever took place in any court in Britain or Northern Ireland under Section 11. My right hon. Friend's experience in Northern Ireland must have made him aware that thousands upon thousands of people in Northern Ireland who are aware of terrorist activities do not give information and

they cannot be prosecuted under Section 11.
On the exclusion order process, could my right hon. Friend tell us whether people who have been excluded from Great Britain to Northern Ireland have been subsequently bought before the courts and convicted of terrorist offences? Does he not think that it is at least an infringement of one's liberties to be excluded from Britain and sent to Northern Ireland where the police have been made aware of the exclusion order? This must create a suspicion in the minds of the police that that person will engage in terrorist activities in Northern Ireland.
I shall refer to a specific case. I believe that the figures we have had tonight on detention indicate that there are at least some policemen in Britain who are allowing their anti-Irish prejudices to run riot when they detain people under the provisions of this Act. I refer specifically to Liverpool, because an analysis of the figures would show that more people have been arrested and detained entering or leaving Liverpool than anywhere else. I should not be surprised if there were Orange and Green elements in Liverpool, in view of its history.
A friend of mine from Belfast arrived in Liverpool on 2nd December last year on his way to Coventry to attend the wedding of a relative who had lived there for many years. He was detained at Liverpool by the Special Branch. An officer, when told that he lived in Andersonstown, said that he suspected him of being an IRA man. He did not detain him, but he said something much more dangerous—that he did not like my friend because he lived in Andersonstown and advised him to get a plane out of Liverpool that night. He said, "If you do not get back to Belfast tonight, I will have you detained for seven days".
I do not think that that police officer had authority to do that. If police officers act in such a prejudiced way, they should be relieved of their duties.

Mr. Powell: Did the hon. Member take any action on that matter? It is clearly something on which action should have been taken.

Mr. Fitt: I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that I would be prepared to go to Liverpool with the person whom


I have mentioned and identify the policeman concerned. I have strong suspicions that it is the same policeman with whom I had dealings at Liverpool one evening. Some of my hon. Friends and I were travelling home from this House and the plane could not land at Aldergrove but was diverted to Liverpool because of bad weather. As I was about to board the boat, I was apprehended by the same Special Branch officer. He knew very well who 1 was, but he insisted that I had to show him some means of identification. As soon as I began to do so, he told me to go ahead. [Laughter.] I must tell my right hon. Friend that I do not think that that is funny. I believe that that officer was exceeding his duties. If he was trying to be smart at the expense of a Member of Parliament, one can imagine how he would act against other people going to and from Northern Ireland.
I ask my right hon. Friend whether he will take up this matter. If I identify that constable, will he take action against him?

Mr. Merlyn Rees: As I understand this matter, I think that there is more to the story than my hon. Friend has told the House. There are existing complaints procedures, let alone the new ones. Complaints have to be made to the chief constable. My hon. Friend has only to write to him and the process will be started immediately.

Mr. Fitt: On the question of detention, I should like to put forward a purely hypothetical case. Let us suppose that someone going to or from Belfast is detained for two days, that nothing is found against him and he is released. Three months later, he goes back to Liverpool and is stopped by the Special Branch and asked for his name and address and whether he has ever been detained there before. He has to say that, three months before, he was detained. It is highly likely that this time he will be detained for four days.
Every Friday evening in Liverpool, someone from Northern Ireland is detained until Monday morning because the detectives have the weekend off. My right hon. Friend can check that with the Northern Ireland Office, with which I am in touch every weekend trying to get people released.
I agree with what has been said by my hon. Friends. The necessity for this legislation is not immediately apparent to me. There are adequate laws throughout the United Kingdom that would enable the police forces to apprehend those guilty of terrorism. The debate on the Act is not another denunciation of terrorism. We are all opposed to terrorism and none more so than myself. I have lived with terrorism every day over the past few years. This legislation will do nothing to prevent it while at the same time it leads to a serious erosion of liberty throughout the United Kingdom.

9.21 p.m.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: It was the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Corbett) who said that he hoped the public would not think that those who spoke against the order were in favour of the IRA. I hope that no Labour Members will think that because my hon. Friends and I support the Home Secretary in seeking to renew this order we wear our respect for civil liberties lightly. The fact is that those whom we represent would never understand it if tonight the order were not to go through.
We have been through the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act at some length in Committee and on the Floor of the House. It is clearly the will of the people that the Act should remain on the statute book and in operation for at least another year.
I seek to delay the House only long enough to raise one matter with the Home Secretary. Is he satisfied that every loophole has been closed and that nothing more need be done, or can be done, to stop any more terrorists coming into this country? A short while ago the IRA announced that it is proposing to step up its activity in this country. That raises again a question that has been advanced on previous occasions—namely, whether we should have identification cards for travellers coming into this country from Ireland. My hon. Friends and I felt that there was a strong argument for identification cards and that the argument against them was rather weak.
The point was well made by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), who said that the method of identifying anyone coming into the country is at best haphazard. Some


people come in and show their passport by way of identification. Some come in with travel documents that may be valid or may be forged while others come in and show their driving licences, which do not have a photograph and which cannot convincingly demonstrate to the authorities that the person in possession of the licence is the person set out in it.
At some airports there are travel questionnaires and it is not immediately clear whether it is obligatory to serve them or obligatory to answer them. It is not clear under what authority the obligation, if it is that, is undertaken. I hope that the Home Secretary will clarify these matters.
As a result of the doubt in this area my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) introduced an amendment to the Bill. The Home Secretary's predecessor opposed it. That was not because of money as that would not have deterred him. The right hon. Gentleman did not oppose it because of administrative difficulty. The right hon. Gentleman said "No" because he said the police considered it to be a considerable disadvantage. It was said that the police preferred the haphazard method of people coming into the country and passing before the immigration or police authorities. Some of us found it difficult to understand that approach because it would be an argument for not having passports when coming into Britain from foreign countries.
The right hon. Gentleman said that it would make no significant difference in the fight against terrorism. At least, that was the view of the police. However, if only one terrorist who might otherwise have threatened or taken a life, or seriously injured someone, is deterred out of the many that otherwise might or might not come in, that is a significant contribution.
The right hon. Gentleman told us that the police were saying "No identification cards". On 28th January 1976 the Home Secretary said:
They not only say that they do not want it; there is a hint that they think that it would be positively deleterious.
They believe that a control which is designed to identify terrorists should concentrate principally on examining and assessing the travellers themselves rather than relying entirely on the

documents they carry. Although it may seem paradoxical,
—there even the Home Secretary seems to have hesitated for a moment while reciting his brief. He went on—
they see certain positive advantages in there being a variety of documents, which enable them in certain cases to engage in conversations with travellers as to why they are carrying particular documents. This may lead to some more useful information than going through the routine passport check as is done in other cases. That is the essential difference.
That was ignoring the fact that any immigration officer can engage somebody coming through Customs in conversation and does not have to converse just about the document that he is carrying. That explanation caused the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) to ask this question of the Home Secretary:
In that case, why is it thought desirable to use at certain airports in the London area immigration cards to be completed by travellers from Northern Ireland?
In other words, why have cards at all, if that were a valid argument? The Home Secretary replied:
A variety of methods is used, but they are not subject to the normal checks through immigration officials. There is a difference in the relationship of the police and immigration officials to movement, whether between Northern Ireland and Great Britain or between the Republic and Great Britain."—[Official Report, 28th January 1976; Vol. 903, c. 569–70.]
The former Home Secretary is not normally as slow as that to grasp the implications of the question in order to answer it directly, and that answer was not an answer to that question. It was a deflection to another point that he was merely reiterating. Frankly, one concluded that the explanation was not convincing, and many of my right hon. and hon. Friends thought that the Home Secretary's opposition to identification cards was the expression of a view held by the police which just did not make a great deal of sense.
If the true reason was that the police thought that identification cards would mean there would have to be more police and that more police officers might have to be trained, recruited and paid, then, with the greatest of respect to the Government and to the police whose views they represent, that is not an explanation that would have weighed with, I suspect, the majority of those that I represent. A


reasonable expenditure of money and resources ought not to be, as the Home Secretary then conceded, a reason for going soft in any way on terrorism.
I ask what has happened in the past 12 months to the Government's thinking on identification cards. Have they raised the matter again and have police officers reconsidered and looked at it in the light of the increase in recruiting? Are there any better reasons now than were then advanced in objecting to identification cards?
In pressing those questions upon the Home Secretary, I do so with great respect, understanding the problems that he and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland face. I accept the importance of the view of the police. I think that it is worth pressing this point even though it was conclusively and firmly rejected last time. I remember when we originally asked for the IRA to be proscribed that the argument was strongly advanced by the police that it would make their task more difficult. Administrative and monetary reasons were not enough. It was said that it would be deleterious because it would drive such organisations underground. The House will recall that argument. But in due course the police reconsidered the matter and so did the Government and there was proscription of the IRA.
I ask that this matter be likewise reconsidered and I ask for a specific answer to these questions.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Tom Litterick: We are not discussing whether we approve or disapprove of the use of violence in settlement of political issues; we are here to decide whether we can justify the arrest and detention of 2,443 people, almost all of whom have not been charged, and the deportation of 58 people, without charge, trial or any normal process of adjudication that anyone here would recognise, in order to arrive at an unknown number of convictions. The Home Secretary was unable to tell us how many, if any, individuals have been convicted within the terms of this legislation.
Thus, there is one obvious sense in which we clearly do not know what we are talking about—nor does the Home

Secretary. He was sensible enough to concede that in these terms he was unable to justify this allegedly temporary piece of legislation. All this prompts me to ask "How long is temporary?" and to remind the House that the first income tax law was temporary—and that was passed in 1812. Clearly, "temporary" is meaningless, as other hon. Members have indicated in their own ways.
As a Birmingham Member, I am, more than most, painfully aware of the fact that the Act was hurried through and can be seen reasonably as a political fig leaf. As was said at the time by several hon. Members, and particularly by the Press, the State had to be seen to be doing something, however fatuous and ineffective it might be.
It therefore produced this Act, which, as the Home Secretary readily concedes, damages the liberties of my constituents and every other hon. Member's constituents. Having said that it damages our liberties and that he cannot prove its effectiveness, the Home Secretary goes on to ask us to renew it and, by way of apology, makes a half-hearted gesture and suggests that if we feel strongly about the matter he might get a couple of prestigious people to look into the way the Act works. I do not know what that means, but I have seen the use of prestigious people as fig leaves for ugly things, and Ireland has been the setting for a number of such exercises.
The form of words used by the Home Secretary did not reassure me. The number of charges brought works out at 100 detentions per charge within the terms of the Act. That is a pretty extravagant way of bringing charges against people and we must assume that when we finally get information about the number of convictions, the extravagance will be even more obvious. It is likely that we shall be talking about more than 200 people being arrested, terrified by the police and held in prison without access to lawyers in order to get the conviction of one person of an offence under the Act—and that, as we know, need not necessarily be for one of the most horrendous offences of killing people by explosions, and so on.
My experience of the Act comes through the experiences of my constituents as they bring them to me. They tell


me what happens to them because they are Irish, because they have Irish names, because they have Irish associations or Irish friends, or because they drink in a pub or a club that is known to be a place in which Irishmen congregate, and so on. The stories that they tell are not pretty. The experiences that they have had are far from pretty. I am talking about the experiences of innocent people.
The House should try to use its imagination—and, incidentally, its common sense. We are not talking simply about 2,433 people who have been bundled by the police; we are also talking about their relatives. When 12 people come through someone's door, back or front, there is mostly a wife inside the house, who is terrified to see her husband seized and taken away. There are children who are also terrified to see their father taken away by about 12 or 14 policemen. They always come in droves, with fleets of cars in the street.
Furthermore, however innocent the person so arrested may be, the consequences are visited upon wives and upon children. At school, children are harried, bullied, beaten and called the foulest obscene names imaginable, because their fathers have been taken away by a dozen policemen for some unexplained reason, and held. A wife may find herself excluded from her normal society because the appearance of people in official uniforms in this open way persuades the majority of men and women that there must be something wrong with the person who is the object of such highly organised official attention. Those informal sanctions, beyond the Home Secretary's intentions, are visited upon far more than the 2,433 so detained.
We should remember, too, that many people so detained lose their jobs because they have been detained. Innocent people are penalised. I insist on their innocence, because no charge is brought against the vast majority of those 2,433 people. But they may lose their jobs, nevertheless, because what gets around is that they have been bundled by the cops, dragged in, fingerprinted and photographed, and that, therefore, there must be something wrong with them, so they get fired.
Therefore, without any offences against the law, penalties are inflicted upon

people because of this panic-stricken piece of legislation.

Mr. William Whitelaw: The hon. Gentleman has made a very important assertion. He has said that people are losing their jobs because of detention under the Act.

Mr. Litterick: Yes.

Mr. Whitelaw: Has the hon. Gentleman any evidence to support that assertion? Can he actually say that he knows of any case in which that has happened? This is very important. He makes a general assertion, but the House ought to know specifically what evidence he has of particular cases.

Mr. Litterick: I have had the evidence of two people who have come to me to explain how they lost their jobs following their detention for a few days. There was no explanation. Their jobs were filled in their absence. The right hon. Gentleman should remember, too, that there is another effect of this sort of thing. It is not simply the immediate terror of being descended upon in one's own home by a large number of policemen; it is what goes on in the person's mind afterwards, and how his neighbours see him thereafter. He is no longer the same person. Incidentally, society is no longer the same. I have had vivid evidence of that. Society no longer looks the same to someone who has had that experience, and the institutions of law enforcement no longer seem the same to such a person.
Only on Monday I was obliged to come here and describe a specific event. The House should pay some attention to the fact that the individual I described on Monday was assaulted by the police not under the powers conferred upon them by the Act that we are discussing but under another piece of legislation. Nevertheless, they assaulted him and they knew that he was an Irishman. Ulster Unionist Members should pay attention to the fact that the man was an Ulsterman, and that he was British born and bred, from Belfast, but so far as these policemen were concerned he was Irish. I shall not repeat the obscenities. I gave examples of them on Monday. But he was an Irishman and was regarded by the police literally in racist terms.
That, of course, justifies in the mind of that kind of police officer maltreating


a human being. The police convince themselves that the individual is less than human and can be kicked around in prison, the "nick", the cell, or wherever he is held, so long as there is no one else present but policemen. That is what happened to John Joseph Girvan in Kings Heath last week.
The police often feel good about it because they are doing it to an Irishman. It is a hideous fact that since the passage of this Act events have amplified the problem of the respect with which the public holds the police. Large numbers of people have first-hand evidence, and the evidence of their associates, of how the police behave in certain circumstances. That inflicts severe damage on those institutions that everyone in this House cherishes. We rely on the law and the ability to enforce the law, and that means the police. If the police are then held in disrespect, because of the acts that they have committed, one leg of the support structure is severely endangered and weakened.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: My hon. Friend has serious allegations about this case and I have called for a report on it. I wonder whether I can give him the facts now rather than later. Mr. Girvan was arrested in connection with a hoax telephone call about a bomb. The facts of the case are being considered by senior officers. As my hon. Friend has fairly said. Mr. Girvan was not detained under the Prevention of Terrorism Act. No complaint has been made. There has been a great deal of publicity, although no one has made a protest, except at a distance, and the police feel that it is most important that Mr. Girvan should be interviewed. I hope that my hon. Friend will go to the police and make his claim on this case and the wider aspects. At the moment what is happening is that we are reading about it in the newspaper but nothing is being done about it in practice.

Mr. Litterick: I am afraid that my right hon. Friend is the victim—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Meyer Galpern): In view of the fact that it has just been disclosed that this case does not arise under the Prevention of Terrorism Act. it hardly comes within the ambit of the discussion and debate that we are having.

Mr. Litterick: I thank you for that piece of guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Home Secretary is a victim of a police hoax. The man was harassed by the police after being released. I was obliged to visit the police myself to establish what was going on. The police were obliged to lie to me in order to cover the facts. The man has been harassed, in the sense that he has been refused admission to all the pubs in the district. The police deny that they had anything to do with it but claim that he was banned from these pubs because he was found drunk and disorderly a month ago.
The man had never been refused a drink in any pub until the day after he was arrested by the police. In fact, he had arranged his wedding reception on the Wednesday of the week on which he was arrested in the very pub from which on the next evening he was excluded. The man is being harassed by the police and needs my protection, and I have given it to him by publicising this case. By the way, the Home Secretary will hear a lot more of this case.
The police now find it easier to take advantage of people than they did before this Act was first enacted. That is bad for society in general. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has failed in his own terms and is incapable of providing convincing proof that this Act helps society combat terrorism. He admits that a severe cost has been inflicted on society, and he is prepared to concede that perhaps the Act should be investigated. In my opinion, it ought to be abrogated, and abrogated forthwith.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Stan Thorne: Hon. Members on both sides of the House have indicated their opposition to terrorism from whichever source it emanates and has emanated over recent years. Indeed, many Labour Members, if they had any way of getting a message to the IRA, the UVF and others who have been involved in terrorism, would simply say, "Put away the bombs and the guns and get down to a political solution of the Northern Ireland issue." Unhappily, we have little opportunity of getting that message over.
In the context of the renewal of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act, it may be argued that the


situation in Northern Ireland is not directly relevant. However, it inevitably forms a back-cloth to the debate.
It is unfortunate that we should still be looking for a change of attitude on the part of hon. Gentlemen opposite who represent the Unionist conglomerate regarding the basic causes of the problems in Northern Ireland. I refer specifically to their failure to reach any agreement on power-sharing, to accept the necessity for civil rights for minorities in the Province, and to indicate the need for all groups to work together on the basis of democracy. That situation tends to bedevil the problem facing us now.
The Home Secretary, who has considerable experience of the situation in Northern Ireland, is apparently still convinced that the deportation of over 100 people and the harassment of about 2,500 Irish people in this country, of whom fewer than 5 per cent. were charged, in some way contributes to the lessening of terrorism in the United Kingdom.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) devastatingly blew that argument sky high. There is not a jot of evidence forthcoming, nor was any presented at the beginning of the debate, which in any way establishes that the Act, originally brought in for a temporary period of six months, has in any way contributed to the lessening of terrorism. However, arising from the harassment of Irish people in Birmingham, Liverpool and elsewhere, it has contributed to a hardening of attitude regarding co-operation with the police. When the previous Home Secretary presented the then Bill to the House, one of the arguments put to him was that if the police were given the powers proposed, it would be at the expense of community co-operation.
The National Council for Civil Liberties has done a tremendous service in producing this report on the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Acts of 1974 and 1976. It has taken that course, and indeed is the only organisation that has carried out a systematic job of monitoring the legislation.
I view with scepticism the suggestion that there should be an inquiry, since such an exercise would produce little more than has already been produced by

the NCCL in its report. If the Home Secretary had any firm evidence that contradicted even one paragraph of the report, I suspect that we would have heard about it earlier in the debate.
The council has set out in its report some case histories. I have a couple of cases with which I should like to deal briefly, and I hope that the Home Secretary will be able to say that they are not true. I refer to the case of Joe Gallagher, a member of the Bletchley Trades Council, a shop steward for UCATT. He was held under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act, he and his family were harassed by the police and he was served with an exclusion order. There has been no difficulty in tracing that man, and through the support of his trade union, the trades council and his local Member of Parliament, he was released after a period of a fortnight. Although no charges were preferred against him, he still had to pay £300 in legal costs. Since that incident he has found it impossible to obtain employment.
I wish to mention another case, involving Louise Cunningham, aged only 12. It is reported that while her parents were held under the Act, she was lifted from her school and interrogated until late in the evening. She was eventually released to stay with relatives, but on the following day the Special Branch attempted to pick her up from school again and were prevented from doing so only by a teacher in the school. If those allegations are true, they are serious matters which should be answered by the Home Secretary.

Mr. Powell: If they are true.

Mr. Thorne: I said "If"—I did not say that they were. The Act gives extensive powers to the police and no proof exists to show that those powers have in any way restricted terrorism in the United Kingdom. It is not difficult for associates of the Provisional IRA to be traced by the police and to be excluded. In many cases people are excluded having had no opportunity to see the evidence upon that which the exclusion is decided.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said that there were some figures that he did not possess in regard to the numbers of people convicted and charged.


It is significant that my right hon. Friend should come to this House and should seek to obtain our agreement to extend the Act without being able to give figures that are crucial in determining our attitude about the effectiveness of the Act.
It has also been implied that the police would not be able to winkle out the terrorists without the benefit of this Act. There is a straight question that arises from the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for l3ethnal Green and Bow. Why is it not possible for the police, in exercising their normal powers, to do the job which the Home Secretary claims that this Act has achieved? Seeking information by detention, by questioning families, children and friends and by the detention of innocent people is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow pointed out, the price we pay for the Act.
The question still remains, "Is the price justified by the results already obtained, or to be obtained, from the working of the Act?" My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has not convinced me that the Act has succeeded, or that we are justified in renewing it. It is clear that the harassment of Irish people living as decent citizens in Great Britain is so serious that it ought to be curtailed.
I do not seek to give any comfort to anyone who wants to terrorise innocent people for political ends, because terrorism is morally and completely unacceptable. However, I think that in the interests of innocent people the Act should not be renewed. I firmly believe—and I think that the Home Secretary knows this to be true—that the guilty can be found by ordinary police methods. On that basis we must consider whether the Act should be renewed. I hope that the House will not proceed along those lines.

9.57 p.m.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: While I question the need to renew the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act, I want to make it plain that I am as much opposed to terrorism as is any other hon. Member. It is my opposition to terrorism and my belief that civil rights are important that make me question the need to renew the Act. If we are not careful, by eroding civil rights even more we shall begin to produce a State terrorism. That makes me feel strongly that we

should question the renewal of the Act now and work hard to remove it from the statute book.
The question that we have to ask is whether a series of small wrongs perpetrated under this Act can make a right. Can evil produce good? Can restricting the freedom of some people who have not committed crimes increase the freedom of other people? I am clear that the Act was a reaction to the horror of the pub bombings in Birmingham. The Goverment had to be seen to be doing something to prevent reprisals against the Irish community in Great Britain, and in the face of overwhelming demands for the return of capital punishment. If either of these two things had happened, I believe that they would have given the terrorists fantastically big levers to use to disrupt society.
I accept that in December 1974 there were arguments for introducing this sort of measure. But it was clearly cosmetic and was not, in practice, even necessary. Perhaps because of luck or perhaps because of first-class police work, the Government were able to show that they were doing something quickly after the bombings. They have continued to show, again because of good police work, that they have been successful in dealing with the terrorists in Great Britain in the last few months. I do not believe that this success owes anything to the Act. It is because of the effectiveness of the police and the abhorrence of terrorism felt by the vast majority of people in Great Britain and their willingness to help combat it.
The real effect of the Act is to reduce that willingness to help the police. There is growing evidence that the Act is counter-productive, that it leaves some people feeling that injustice to them and their friends is being perpetrated. Because of that feeling, they become less and less willing to co-operate in the stamping-out of terrorism.
Many people have referred to the figures showing the numbers affected by the Act. One of the most disturbing aspects is the number of people detained at ports of entry. Many have come for relatively short visits, to see a football match or to attend a meeting, a family wedding or a funeral. The short period of detention makes their whole visit pointless, so those are particularly mean


detentions, which irk people and make them resent the State and the system.
People detained in that way often have no opportunity of informing friends and relatives who are waiting to meet them. Anyone who has hung around a railway station waiting for somebody who does not arrive knows the anger and frustration caused, so detention at the ports must be carried out very carefully. In view of the numbers listed in the statistics, I am not convinced that it is done with the care and concern that there should be for the effect on those involved and their relatives.
I am also concerned about the fact that sometimes people appear to be detained because they give a smart answer to the police or because of their appearance. They can be detained and, in effect, punished for something that perhaps they should not have done but that they did on the spur of the moment, without any judicial process. A couple of hours' detention for someone who has come to watch a football match or address a meeting is effective punishment, and it is completely wrong.
The Home Secretary told us that he was trying to obtain the details of convictions rather than the number who had been charged. That is very important in trying to evaluate how well the Act is working. However, we need to know not only the number of convictions resulting from people being detained under the Act but how many of those convictions would not have occurred but for the working of the Act.
When we look down the list of charges we see some odd ones, such as the person charged with drunken driving who apparently looked more like a terrorist than a drunken driver and so was arrested under the provisions of the Act. It would be better to have a list of those who were convicted as a result of being arrested under the Act and who would not otherwise have been convicted. It may be difficult to produce those figures, but they would give a true guide to whether the Act has been effective.
I turn to the question of the exclusion order. For people who move from place to place there may be some grounds for using the exclusion order, but its use is

puzzling for a person who has a family and a home and a job and is known to have fixed habits in a particular town. It is difficult to see how we improve everybody's safety by sending him where he is unlikely to have a home and unlikely to obtain a job. It is much easier to keep an eye on someone in a known place where he has known and fixed habits than someone who is turfed out and sent to a place where there are unlikely to be those benefits.
There is a strong case for reducing the period of renewal from 12 months to six months. My right hon. Friend said that that would be difficult, because it would mean renewal in March and September. I understand that it would be possible for the renewal order to be debated at least a month before the renewal, so we could have half-yearly debates in January and July.
I would have thought that it was well worth having the Act renewed every six months. This is such a serious matter that it is worth monitoring the situation for at least one and a half hours twice a year. Another argument in favour of this is that it would increase the chances of finding the right moment to decide not to renew the Act. It is always possible, if a small incident occurs after a long period during which there seems to be no need to renew the Act, that this small incident will colour people's views. If we had two opportunities each year it would be a welcome advance.
The most important thing would be an inquiry into the way the Act works. The inquiry is important, because many allegations have been made tonight and there are many more contained in evidence collected by the National Council for Civil Liberties, and because many trade unions are extremely disturbed about the working of the Act.
An inquiry would bring out and verify much of the criticism that has been made and make it very much easier for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary if he concluded that he could dispense with the Act. He would then be able to point out that an official inquiry had shown that there was no need for the Act to continue.
There is a strong case for setting up an inquiry now and making its findings available before we have to renew the


Act again. The inquiry ought particularly to look at the holding of people in detention, especially at ports, and the general power to hold people. It has been suggested to me that while they are being held in detention many people feel that the attitude is "Talk or stay in". That may be a possible form of blackmail if someone has something that he can talk about to the police, but it is frightening for someone who knows nothing that could be of use to the police if he is told "Either you talk or you will be kept in for a longer period while we make inquiries." The inquiry should consider how far people feel they are being got at and detained because they are not prepared to talk.
The inquiry should also consider the questions that are asked of people held in detention. Many people clearly feel that the questioning is irrelevant to terrorism but is concerned with their political and trade union beliefs. I realise that it is difficult for those who are doing the questioning. They have to think of something to ask people to find out all sorts of information, but it is disturbing that while people are being detained and interrogated they feel that it is their political beliefs and their trade union activities that are being questioned. It leaves them feeling unhappy about the State and its activities. This is another matter that the inquiry should look into.
Some people feel that they are being harassed and stopped because they have long hair, or because the police do not like them. There may be no basis for the allegation, but it is something that people say repeatedly, and an inquiry could establish whether the allegations are true.
One of the most important matters that an inquiry should look into is that of the Judges' Rules. It was suggested earlier—and I think it was a strong point —that because the Act contains strong powers to detain people it is particularly important that the Judges' Rules are applied here. An inquiry into the use of or the specific failure to observe the Judges' Rules would be extremely important.

Mr. McNamara: We must try to clear up this question about the Judges' Rules. The Judges' Rules now apply to

detention for 48 hours and the impeding of proper inquiries. The whole point is that the Judges' Rules themselves need re-examination, because of the possible extra five-day period. The point is not that the Judges' Rules should not be used but that there should be fresh rules to allow access to a solicitor within that time.

Mr. Bennett: I accept that the Judges' Rules could well be strengthened because of the extra period of time, but we should be examining whether the Judges' Rules are applied in those cases up to 48 hours, because there is a lot of evidence that they are not. It is particularly important to allow access to solicitors and the right to let relatives know where someone is. One of the most frightening aspects of a totalitarian State is that there may be a knock on the door and someone disappears. No one is suggesting that in this country they could disappear for long, but to worried relatives 24 hours, 48 hours or a week is a long time, and that will cause a great deal of worry and anxiety.
There seems no good reason why people cannot be allowed to tell relatives where they are, thus at least allaying this anxiety. This is one of the most important subjects that an inquiry could look into.
One other matter that an inquiry could consider is the regional variation of treatment. This is a difficult point, because it may be that regional variations simply reflect the variations in the activities of terrorists in different parts of the country. However, I think that they reflect far more the police attitude to the legislation. In many areas the police do not use the powers which exist under this legislation. They believe that the powers under normal legislation are sufficient to enable them to carry out questioning and other duties. This is another matter that could be looked at by the inquiry.
I feel strongly that having voted twice against the renewal of this order it would be worth while doing it again only if we failed to gain a Government commitment to an inquiry. I would very much welcome an indication from my right hon. Friend, when he replies to the debate, that he will carry out the inquiry, thus meeting many of my points and those made by my hon. Friend the Member


for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo).
If my right hon. Friend cannot give such an indication he will leave many of

us on the Labour Benches with no alter-native but once more to put our names on the record as opposing the renewal of this legislation. We should then have give to continue our campaign to get this legislation removed from the statute book.

10.12 p.m.

Mr. Ron Thomas: I was very pleased to hear my right hon. Friend make it absolutely clear, as has every one of my hon. Friends, how all of us in this House are completely opposed to acts of terrorism. None of us wants to say or do anything which would give any comfort to those who commit these mindless acts of terrorism, from whatever part of the religious or political spectrum they may come, whether in Northern Ireland or anywhere else.
Tonight the onus was on my right hon. Friend to show to those of us who are concerned about this legislation how the Act contributed in any way to lessening terrorism in Northern Ireland or the rest of the United Kingdom. Frankly I do not think that he has given us any indication of the contribution of this legislation to that end.
We have heard about the 2,500 people who have been arrested. I stress the point by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Litterick) that this is a most traumatic experience. It is interesting how the police on these occasions seem to be able to get together goodness knows how many vehicles, men and dogs. It is a traumatic experience, not just for the individual but for his family. All the neighbours are soon involved. This approach has a bad effect on Anglo-Irish relationships.
I, too, know a case of an individual who insisted that he was sacked because he was detained by the police. It is not much fun having to tell one's employer that one's absence from work for a week was because of detention by the police on suspicion of terrorist acts. We cannot be so naïve as to believe that that would have no effect on a person's job and career prospects. It may be shown—indeed in most cases it is—that he is completely innocent.
It is not just a question of balancing the erosion of civil liberties against acts of terrorism. The onus is on the Home Secretary to show how the Act has contributed to the lessening of terrorism, and I do not think that he has done that. The more civil liberties are eroded in Britain, the more we are playing into the hand of the IRA. An erosion of liberty is exactly what it wants.
I shall relate the procedure for exclusion orders to two cases in Bristol. One concerns a man named Danny Ryan, who is an active trade unionist in the Bristol area and has been for many years. The other concerns an individual who is one of my constituents. Section 7 (3) talks about making representations in writing to the Secretary of State setting out the grounds for an individual's objection to an exclusion order. It also says that these representations may include a request for an interview with a person nominated by the Secretary of State. The Home Secretary has said that anyone faced with an exclusion order can have a legal adviser to frame representations. This question has been given considerable emphasis, but what good is a legal adviser if there is no indication whatever of the evidence against the person who is the subject of the exclusion order? It is a complete waste of time and money.
In both the cases to which I have referred the individuals had legal representations. In fact, they got quite a good solicitor to defend them. That solicitor kept telephoning me at the House of Commons asking me to contact the then Home Secretary—he has now left for a better paid job in Brussels—to give him some indication of the evidence against the individuals. That request was refused.
When the person nominated by the Home Secretary met Danny Ryan he told him that he know nothing whatsoever about the evidence against him. What was Danny Ryan, or his legal adviser, supposed to do then? Were they supposed to throw random questions into the air or make random statements in the hope that these might have some impact on the person nominated by the Home Secretary? If the nominated person has any indication of the evidence he will not give that indication to the individual concerned. So what does the individual do? Does he throw out random questions and hope that a change of attitude or a glint in the eye of the nominated person will give him an indication that he has got to the point and that he should pursue it in some depth?
It disappointed me that when Mr. Agee and Mr. Hosenball were faced with the same kind of procedure under which the Secretary of State, or three wise men, or


someone, made a decision to deport them, they were given no indication of the evidence against them. We had a considerable number of national newspapers, the media and hon. Members raising all hell about this. We have the same kind of procedure under the prevention of terrorism legislation, so I hope that hon. Members who continue to raise the question of Mr. Agee and Mr. Hosenball will make the same kind of protest about this legislation this evening.
We have a situation where an individual who is subjected to an exclusion order is given no idea of the evidence against him and nor is his solicitor. His family are given no indication of the evidence and his Member of Parliament cannot discover it from the Home Office.
The people served with exclusion orders are sent to Northern Ireland and let go. They are supposedly involved in acts of terrorism, yet, after the traumatic experience of their homes being broken up and of losing their jobs and families going on social security, in Northern Ireland they are set free.
I understand that a seaman in Southampton was about to have an exclusion order made against him until it was pointed out that Section 4(3) of the Act raised the question whether, since he was a seaman with an address in Southampton, he had been resident in Great Britain for more than 20 years. The Secretary of State presumably had evidence that he was involved in acts of terrorism and was about to proceed against him when someone said, "Hold your foot up a minute. This section says that if he has been here more than 20 years we cannot proceed against him." So they let him go. What a nonsense that is.
I know what has happened to Danny Ryan and Brendan Pheenan, the two constituents I mentioned. They are walking around in Northern Ireland—out of work, the last I heard. They were members of Clann na Eireann. A fair number of the members of Clann na Eireann have been picked up in this country. If the Home Secretary thinks that that organisation is connected with the IRA, I should be grateful if he would say so. I would hate any of my young constituents to join what is to all intents and pur-

poses a perfectly proper organisation only to be picked up in the dead of night and sent away.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) mentioned information. Another doubtful provision in the Act, Section 10(2), says:
If any person gives, lends or otherwise makes available to any other person, whether for consideration or not, any money or other property, knowing or suspecting that the money or other property will or may be applied or used for or in connection with the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism to which this section applies, he shall be guilty of an offence.
Therefore, presumably someone could he arrested for not having acted on a suspicion. We have all been to political meetings and been inundated with collections and pamphlets and so on. Unless we suspect every time that the money may by devious ways be used for acts of terrorism, we could be guilty of an offence.
Both my right hon. Friend and his predecessor have admitted that this legislation is based on executive, not judicial, orders. In every dictatorship in the world where people are excluded or put in prison—whether Uganda, the Soviet Union or Chile—someone says that an executive order is made necessary by the security of the State. We on this side condemn acts which deprive an individual of his liberty, whether in the Soviet Union, in Czechoslovakia, in Chile, in South Africa or anywhere else.
This piece of legislation takes away the civil liberties of many of our people without justification. It does so without the justification that it leads to a lessening of terrorism. We would oppose such legislation in a whole number of other countries. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would take that view. Perhaps it is in supreme naivete that I say to him, as in previous debates, that the House should be the watchdog of civil liberties and not the poodle of the Home Secretary. If we allow this legislation to be renewed for another 12 months, we simply become poodles. I for one will be voting against the order if given the opportunity.

10.26 p.m.

Mr. Martin Flannery: The outstanding fact about the legislation now before the House in


the form of an order is that it was born in panic as a result of public clamour and it continues as a monumental failure and a suppressor of human liberty. When public opinion is shocked and horrified by horrendous killings of the type to which we are all opposed, it is all too easy to go along with the first thinking of public opinion, with the natural fear that all of us share as a result of the horrific bombings that took place. Immediately we do that, democracy suffers and retribution is on the agenda. That is a bad guide and has nothing in common with the reasons for which I was sent here and came here. The witch hunt then begins to take over, and it has begun to take over.
I oppose such an attitude as something that all human beings of a civilised nature should oppose. Those of us who have stood up against this legislation throughout will surely be vindicated by the history of the near future. The emergency powers introduced in Northern Ireland did not prevent terrorism in any way. On the contrary, it is worse than ever from both sides. Although there is no slight movement towards what I am about to say, the solution lies in a political context and not in emergency powers of any sort. The sooner we grasp that the better for all of us. The slaughter will continue for another 10 years if we rely purely on emergency powers.
In this section of the United Kingdom the same hardening of attitudes is beginning to become apparent as in Northern Ireland as a result of internment and emergency powers. This sort of legislation enables the police—those of them who are of such a character—to engage in legalised terrorism of the sort instanced by a whole group of cases. I have heard nothing from my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to make we want to lean on any vague promise of considering an investigation. That is quite insufficient.
My hon. Friends and I in common with Opposition Members are totally and completely against terrorism no matter from which corner it springs. It is all too easy to place my hon. Friends and I in the position of supporting terrorism because we oppose a document that is set against terrorism. It is all too easy for others to suggest that in some oblique way it can be read into our words and

actions that we are for terrorism when everything we do proves the very opposite.
My hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne) referred to the NCCL pamphlet, which is quite a sizeable inquiry into the results of what has happened so far. I advocate that all Members read it. I ask them to bear with me while I read a particular section:
One of the fundamental tenets of the English legel system is that a person is innocent until proved guilty. Under this Act over and over again it is the innocent person who must establish his case. The attitude amongst supporters of this Act seems to be that this shift in the burden of proof is unimportant after all, innocent people have no need to fear.
The truth is that for "innocent" one should read "non-Irish", "not interested or involved in Irish politics", "does not live, work or mix socially with Irish people", "does not belong to a political party or other body that might be critical of British Government policy in Ireland".
That is the kind of thing that is being hurled against people who have any Irish connection—that they are somehow synonymous with a background of terrorism.
All that has gone on over the years of emergency powers has exacerbated the situation. The powers have not done the least thing to make us sleep safer in our beds. They have terrorised a whole group of innocent people. Yet, in the legal sense, only a tiny handful of people have been arrested who could be said to be vaguely connected with what has happened in Northern Ireland.
Suspects are arrested without trial or appeal, and instances of this have been given. I understand from my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) that if we looked closely at what has happened in Liverpool we would be horrified at the number of people who have been subjected to kind of justice and legal vigilantism that this legal jargon has put into effect.
Of course, we know that this all happened because we were frightened and that hon. Members were nobly motivated. But, surely, after three years, it is time for second thoughts. We should now look at the Act again, go through it with a fine toothcomb and see what is really happening. We should examine it and


find out whether this Draconian Act—as the previous Home Secretary described it—has done what it was supposed to do.
Arrested persons have little or no access to their MPs or the media. They are arrested and can do little or nothing about it. Is that what we passed this legislation for? The suspect has only 96 hours in which to make representations to an adviser and has no friend or solicitor to help him plead his case. I cannot believe that there is any semblance of natural justice in that. It is quite contrary to British justice as we have been taught to believe it. It is a dangerous precedent in English law and one hopes that something can be done about it quickly, but one almost despairs when one sees what is happening.
If the Act continues—and it looks as though it will and as though those of us who will vote against the measure will be defeated—at least the Act should be subjected to six-monthly rather than annual renewal so that we can let people know that we are looking at the matter closely and that we are deeply worried about the effects of the Act.
We ask for at least six-monthly renewal and for a commission of inquiry to be set up to consider the workings of the Act. We ask for an attempt to be made to reconcile the Act with the traditional rights and liberties to which we are used in our country.
Although many hon. Members—and I think more than previously—will vote against the measure on a point of principle, we still ask for these concessions to be made to us on matters that we have been brought up to believe in. We ask for a six-monthly renewal period and for a full-scale commission of inquiry into what has been going on. I hope that there will be more people voting with me against this Draconian measure that has been proved conclusively not to have done the things that it was intended to do.

10.35 p.m.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I have listened to the debate this evening somewhat stunned that all the opposition to the renewal of the Act and the careful examination of its terms have come, mainly, from this side. I would have thought that on a matter of

civil liberties we would have a more representative debate, pulling in more hon. Members to consider the problems involved. I am also saddened that some of my hon. Friends have exaggerated their cases and over-egged their puddings to such an extent that, although the kernel of what they were saying is correct, it can be shown that they were wrong in the excesses of their comments.
I have plotted the course of the Act over the past two years by way of monthly Questions because of my concern about its operation and it has become increasingly obvious that it is not working in the way intended. The Government's own figures do not demonstrate conclusively that the Act has been a help in deterring terrorism in the United Kingdom, but it can be demonstrated that there has been a deterioration of police-public relations in certain areas and a feeling that because a person is of Irish descent or has Irish friends, he is subjected to considerable harassment.
When we cast our minds back to the passage of the Act, we can remember the sense of panic, desperation and noble motives that combined to lead us to bring in legislation to show the public that the Government and the parties were at least as concerned as the popular Press about bringing about the downfall of terrorism in this country. We went for legislation that contains much about which no one could reasonably complain, but there are two provisions that are causing us all considerable concern. These are the extra five days' detention allowed under the Act and the exclusion principles.
We understand that, in the nature of terrorism and the gathering of evidence, it may be necessary to detain a person for more than 48 hours, but we cannot accept that after those 48 hours there should not be notification of his relatives and next of kin immediately and automatically and that the detained person should not have immediate and automatic access to legal advice and direction.
The Home Secretary made great play of the fact that the normal Judges' Rules apply, but until a recent case, those rules said that there should be access to legal advice only if it could be shown that this would not deter progress of the inquiry. The difference between the Judges' Rules and the Act is that the legislation provides an extra five days in


which the police can argue that access to legal advice would impede the inquiries. That is the important distinction and that is the reason why we claim that such access should be given after the normal period of 48 hours—although there are many who would argue that it should be given immediately, as I would argue, and not only for this sort of offence but for other offences. That, therefore—the question of access and information —is the first cause for concern.
The second main cause for concern is the procedures under the exclusion orders. If we make the comparison with the American journalists of our British subjects likely to suffer from exclusion orders, we cannot but come to the conclusion that if one is a British subject one is more badly treated under the terms of the Act than if one is a foreign immigrant under the terms of the Immigration Acts. I make no particular racial point over that, but point out that one of the many civil liberties about which the British rightly boast is curtailed in this particular circumstance under this Act.
Going further, what is wrong with the whole question of exclusion is that we effectively banish people from one part of the United Kingdom to another. The ridiculous aspect of it is that we export our terrorists to Northern Ireland, or, in a few cases, to the Republic. But what happens when they get there? None of them has yet been charged. I again accept that in this delicate business of intelligence and counter-intelligence, information will be given which cannot be released or shown. But it is quite ridiculous to export a terrorist to Northern Ireland, where almost by definition he is more likely to commit an offence than he would be if he were in England, and more likely also, with the situation in Northern Ireland, to get away with the commission of an offence than he would be if he were here.
That brings me to the partial commitment that my right hon. Friend gave in his opening speech. Before I deal with that, however, I should like to raise the question of the six-monthly renewal. From what my right hon. Friend has heard today, I would have hoped that sufficient concern had been shown on the Labour Benches for him to reconsider his argument about having renewal only

every 12 months. He drew a comparison between legislation in this country and that which exists in the Six Counties, and he said that he felt that it was necessary in the Six Counties but perhaps not necessary in this country because legislation was not quite as severe. Whether or not legislation is quite so severe is beside the point. We are comparing two unlike situations.
In addition to that, even though we are comparing two unlike situations, the mere fact that the legislation is severe is sufficient to justify renewal every six months. Certainly the degree of concern that has been shown on the Labour Benches should also do that.
I come now to the question of the inquiry. From the way in which my right hon. Friend spoke, it is obvious that his mind has been turning towards the question of an inquiry into this Act. However, what I am not certain about is the exact nature of the inquiry that my hon. Friends and I want. Do we want an inquiry into whether we should have the Act at all? If that is our conclusion, that will be a subjective judgment by all hon. Members. Are we to have an inquiry into whether in fact the Act has achieved its objects? That would be, perhaps, a more objective inquiry, and one that would, perhaps, be worth pursuing. Or are we merely to have an inquiry into the actual mechanics of the Act—in what way will appeals be heard on exclusion orders, and can we tamper with the Judges' Rules in this case whilst we await my right hon. Friend's general examination of the Judges' Rules, and so on? These are matters that we shall have to carefully think about and work out. I personally hope that my right hon. Friend can be more forthcoming about the terms under which he might possibly envisage an inquiry.
I would add a word of caution to many of my hon. Friends, and to the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) who is no longer with us. They should not expect that an inquiry will necessarily reach the conclusion that we would like. It is a question of the terms of reference as well as the people appointed to it. For every Gardiner inquiry we can have a Diplock, and for every minority report on Compton we can have a majority report on Compton. Let us bear that well in mind.

10.46 p.m.

Mr. Robert Parry: My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) earlier made reference to the number of arrests in Liverpool. I should briefly like to bring to the attention of the House the number of arrests on Merseyside in general and Liverpool in particular.
Last Friday I tabled some Written Questions about this Act and I asked my right hon. Friend
how many persons have been detained by the Merseyside police under the Prevention of Terrorism Act; how many have been prosecuted or released; and how many are still pending.
My right hon. Friend replied:
566 people were detained up to 25th February 1977. Of these, 43 were prosecuted; 16 were removed under exclusion orders; 504 released; prosecutions were pending in two cases; and one person was still in custody.
Only 43 prosecutions have been carried out. In the other Written Question I asked my right hon. Friend
how many persons have been convicted on Merseyside under the Prevention of Terrorism Act; and what sentences have been given.
The answer shocked me, because it was "None". I should like my right hon. Friend to clarify this because quite frankly it has got me baffled. In his earlier reply my right hon. Friend said:
The 43 prosecutions include five people charged with conspiracy to cause explosions, three charged with attempted murder and four charged with causing explosions".—[Official Report, 4th March, Vol. 927, cols. 327–8.]
I should like my right hon. Friend to explain under what Act these people were charged. Was it this Act or some other Act of Parliament?
I presume that most of the arrests took place in my constituency because Liverpool dockland is in my constituency and the Dublin and Belfast boats sail from my constituency. I myself know of a particular case that was brought to my attention last year. It concerned a young lad in his early 20s whom I had known since he was a youngster. He had never been involved in any political organisations and had a record of doing good voluntary welfare work. He was detained for between 48 and 60 hours but when I made representations to the Chief Constable of the Merseyside police I was refused permission to see him. Eventually he was released without any charge

being made against him. When I took the matter up with the Home Secretary it took about 4½months before I even got a reply to this particular query.
More recently, a young couple in Liverpool, who were going to Northern Ireland on honeymoon, were detained for 48 hours and then released and no charges were made. One can understand the great stress and humiliation caused to that young couple who had just got married and were going on their honeymoon.
Therefore, I have strong reservations about renewing the Act. I voted against renewal of the Act on other occasions. If there is a Division tonight, I shall again vote against its renewal.

10.50 p.m.

Mr. George Cunningham: I support the renewal of the Act. However, I went on this occasion, as I have on every occasion that we have discussed whether the 1974 and 1976 Acts should be renewed, to raise the question of the Judges' Rules, to which reference has already been made in the course of the debate.
The Home Secretary will recall, I hope, that the Judges' Rules apply only in England and Wales. Completely different arrangements apply in Scotland. I am sorry that a representative of the Scottish Office, or the Lord Advocate, is not on the Treasury Bench. But I can understand that. It is always embarrassing when arrangements in Scotland, which cause not the least difficulty and which the police in Scotland accept as needing no change, are resisted in England on the ground that enormous difficulty would be caused and that the work of the police would be hugely impeded, and so on.
It is not only that we have achieved no change in the Judges' Rules in all this time, but that they have got worse. I cannot recall whether this happened during the tenure of office of my right hon. Friend or immediately before, but I want an explanation.
The last time that we discussed this matter—a year or so ago—I pointed out to the then Home Secretary that the judges had made a god-awful mess of drafting the Judges' Rules. On the one occasion when we let them draft quasi-legislation, they made an awful botch of it. In consequence, one part of the Judges' Rules provides that a person


arrested and held in a police station must have access to a solicitor provided that the police do not think that it will impede the investigation, and so on, but in another part of the Judges' Rules—in the administrative direction appended to them —it is said that a person so held has a totally unqualified right to send out a telegram so long as he has the money to pay for it. That was in the Judges' Rules and I drew it to the attention of the previous Home Secretary a year ago. My right hon. Friend said that he would look into it, and he did.
What did he do? He produced a new circular and sent it out to the police forces in this country without informing Parliament by any means at all and without informing me, the Member of Parliament who had raised it, that he was doing it, and he removed the right to send out a telegram.
I tell the Home Secretary that that had better not happen again or there will be big trouble. No orders will go through to the Statutory Instruments Committee without a Division—and there are many of those. So I hope that point will be taken on board.
I have had other reasons to complain about the carelessness of Home Office officials with regard to their attitude to this House in the past, and it had better stop. I am not sent to this House to have Home Office officials treating it with contempt. This is not the only occasion in recent times. I blame officials, not Ministers. It is asking coo much that Ministers, faced with a circular to be issued to police forces, should recollect that this matter had arisen because a Member raised it in the House. It is the job of civil servants to remind Ministers and to remember that they would want to communicate with the Member and tell him what has happened. So much on the procedure.
Does the Home Secretary appreciate the enormity of the significance of that change? We are saying that a person can be picked up by the police, taken inside a police station, and not have the right to send a message out to anybody at all so long, of course, as he is in England.
If he is in Scotland he will be all right, because under the Scottish legislation, for the past 90 years at least, and

now under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act, he has a right not only to tell relatives but to have a private interview, not in the presence of police, with a solicitor and to have the examination held up until the solicitor can get there if the sheriff so decides.
The phrase used in Germany at one time for picking up people at night was nacht and rebel. People disappeared without anybody knowing where they were. I am prepared to go a long way in the modification of civil liberties in the cause of counteracting terrorism, but there is always some point at which one says "Thus far and no further". The torture in Northern Ireland was one such occasion when it was said "We do not care so long as innocent lives are saved". Innocent lives can always be saved with terrible methods, but we are not prepared to save them by torturing prisoners.
I draw a line at the idea of picking people up and taking them to the police station without the right to communicate outside that police station. If they have the right to communicate outside, they may communicate with other terrorists. That is the price that has to be paid and that is where I draw the line.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will reconsider the decision—it may have been taken by his predecessor; I do not know —to remove a right to communicate outside. There was a case where two Community Service Volunteers from Northern Ireland were going back to Northern Ireland following a conference and were detained at Heathrow. I have seen a signed statement made by the two volunteers in question and have had representations from the CSV, whose headquarters happen to be in my constituency. The statement admits that those people were kept overnight without food being provided until the second day. If that is true, it is a straight-forward breach of the Judges' Rules, even as they arc now framed.
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will examine that case. I do not expect him to respond now, but I hope that he will consider that point, because nothing can damage this kind of anti-terrorism legislation more than the knowledge that the police are pushing things a little far and exploiting the


extension of the powers which we have chosen to give them.

10.59 p.m.

Mr. William Whitelaw: The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) said that he was prepared to accept a considerable modification of civil liberties in the interests of defeating terrorism. I agree with him, and I shall try in these brief remarks to tell him why.
I shall not take up the argument about the Judges' Rules, which I shall leave to be dealt with by the Home Secretary. I have always believed in never dealing with legal matters unless I have received a great deal of advice—and when I face matters involving Scots law, I take that view even more strongly.
Let me turn to the main theme of this legislation and its renewal. I submit that the first duty of any Government is to protect innocent citizens. This Act gives the Government considerable powers which could lead to injustice in individual cases. It is right that this House should discuss the use of these powers by the Government and should question them hard. The fact that we have had considerable debate on this legislation is right and proper. That is why the Act was introduced on a temporary basis, and it was absolutely correct that it should have been so introduced in order to cover debate. That it should be a temporary measure, subject to renewal must be right in principle and the debate has shown that it is right.
Some people may think that there is irony in the fact that the two right hon. Gentlemen who are dealing with the Act from the Front Bench are the Home Secretary and myself. Whether that is good or not, one thing that cannot be denied is that, apart from the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who sit for Northern Ireland constituencies, there are no two Members of the House who have more experience of terrorism at first hand than the Home Secretary and myself. No one can deny that, and it is important that it cannot be denied.
I intend now to exercise my right to say what I feel about it from my own experience. I have heard a great deal of talk this evening and from many hon.

Members at different times, about terrorism. People say "I am wholly against acts of terrorism. I shall not say anything or do anything that will encourage terrorism in any way but…". There is no such thing as "but" in terrorism. There can be no compromise.
If one is against terrorism one must be wholeheartedly against it and be seen to be so. I hope that hon. Members will listen because I shall admit that I was very wrong and that I made a major mistake when I was in Northern Ireland. I believe that it is possible to make a mistake once but it is a fool who does not learn from it. When hon. Members talk about dealing with terrorism they should listen to one who feels that he did make a mistake and who has learned from it.
Many people thought that the introduction of special category status for prisoners in Northern Ireland was right. There were very considerable reasons why I did what I did in the circumstances in Northern Ireland. I was criticised by some hon. Members and, looking back, I am glad that I was. I was supported by the right hon. Gentleman and by many hon. Members of the House. But, the fact is that I was wholly, utterly and entirely wrong. I was wrong to the extent that my successors have had the difficult task of dealing with the problem which I created for them. I created it for them because— although I did not realise it at the time—it looked as if the resolve in dealing with terrorism was weakening. That is what it looked like in Northern Ireland and many people believed that there would be some easement in the Government's resolve to deal with it.
That is why I say to the Secretary of State—please, when we talk of dealing with terrorism do not let us imagine that there is any way of compromise. Do not think that we can say "I am wholly against it but…on this occasion I think that it would be better not to go as far as this." In that way lies very great danger. I have thought it right to say why I think that from my own experience.
We are dealing with very desperate men. I say to the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) that I hope he will not continue with the argument that we are dealing only with the Provisional IRA in this particular case. The schedule of the Act gives us the right and gives the Home Secretary the right to include any


other organisation that he thinks fit. If he believes that it is necessary when dealing with terrorism he has the right to include them and I believe that he would have the support of the House in so doing. Certainly right hon. and hon. Members from Northern Ireland have made it clear that they would say that, if it were necessary in similar circumstances to deal with the Ulster Volunteer Force or any other terrorist organisation, the Home Secretary should come to the House and deal with it.
The right hon. Gentleman said that at this time the threat to this country comes from the Provisional IRA, and I do not think that anyone can substantially deny that fact. No one can deny, from what we have seen, that that is a fact of life, and the Home Secretary is right to say so.
I hope that the hon. Member for Belfast, West will feel that the Act can be used to deal with terrorists from where-ever they come. I am entitled to say that now because he will remember that, against considerable opposition, I used various emergency powers in Northern Ireland—and I was the Secretary of State who first used them—against some of the militant Protestant organisations. I did it because I believed that I was right to do so. I was supported in that action by Members of the Unionist Party, by the late Lord Faulkner, and by many other people, both inside this House and outside it, who said "If there are terrorists, wherever they come from they should be dealt with."

Mr. Craig: The right hon. Gentleman was not the first to use these special powers against para-military organisations. Ministers of Home Affairs of Northern Ireland had used them earlier.

Mr. Whitelaw: I take the point. It is important to make the point that the Act can be used against terrorism wherever it comes from. I hope that we shall always remember that as a fact.
When dealing with terrorists, we need to come back to the point which is sometimes lost sight of, and that is that we are dealing with very desperate men. We are dealing with people who think nothing of placing bombs to kill unknown numbers of totally innocent people. They do not care how many they kill; they are not interested. We are dealing with people prepared to go into a pub with

a machine-gun and fire it, caring not whom they kill. We have to reckon that that is the sort of person we are dealing with.
If anyone doubts whether we still face these dangers in Britain, he has only to look at the tragic and dangerous situation in Northern Ireland, a situation which I always feared but did not actually experience to the extent that it is happening now, the assassination of individual people. That is a very dangerous development. It it happens in one part of the United Kingdom, it could happen in another, and we would be fools to imagine that it could not. We would he fools to think that these dangers could not come here.
It is against that background that we are looking at the renewal of the Act. I believe that the Home Secretary has made a very powerful case for its renewal. He said that the police advice was that the Act had made a major contribution to dealing with terrorism. I do not think it necessary to argue whether that is so. It is difficult to prove whether an Act has made a major contribution, but some hon. Members have tried to argue otherwise. It is a fact that, since the Act was passed, we have had considerable success in dealing with terrorism in this country. Whether that success has come from the Act is difficult to argue, but we have done it, and that in itself is a major reason for renewing the Act.
Then one comes to the consideration of the protection of those who are seeking to deal with terrorism and to protect us—a point well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) and my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr). Both made the point about being able to protect the police, who are seeking to protect us. The renewal of the Act is important in that regard.
Therefore, I conclude that the Act should be renewed. As the Home Secretary himself said, the balance in these matters is very difficult to achieve. The right hon. Gentleman should look into any genuine, clear and definite complaints from any hon. Member on either side of the House who can put before him arguments as to where the Act has impinged unfairly on individual citizens.

Mr. George Cunningham: So there is a "but"—"We are against terrorism, but—".

Mr. Whitelaw: No. It is right that the Home Secretary should look into genuine and definite complains, and I think that he will. There is no "but". It is just a question of looking into genuine and definite complaints. Whilst I think that that is right, I should have grave doubts, some of which the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) raised in my mind, about any formal inquiry. If the right hon. Gentleman decided to have a formal inquiry, that decision would question the Government's resolve. It would raise a "but" whether they were determined against terrorism. Looking into individual complaints from hon. Members is a proper democratic process under any Act. Deciding to have a formal inquiry into the Act is a different matter, and I have grave doubts whether it would be wise.
On the whole, I think it right to renew the Act for a year.

Mr. George Cunningham: Was not the right hon. Gentleman a member of the Government who had the Compton Inquiry and the Parker inquiry into the things that happened in Northern Ireland? Those were formal inquiries, and very useful, too. They were the ones that eradicated torture on the part of British personnel. Was not that rather useful?

Mr. Whitelaw: I will not be led into that matter. I have strong feelings about some of the things that happened and some of the balance that went wrong in that issue. The matter raises all sorts of issues outside this country, and I shall not return to it. I have great anxieties whether some of the inquiries held in those cases helped in dealing with terrorism. I think that some of them did not. That is a lesson I have learnt from experience. I am very dubious about such inquiries. There may have been some reason for them, but whether they were right when seen in retrospect I am not too sure.
But I am certain about an Act which can be looked at every year. I should have no objection to its being looked at every six months. Now that I am in Opposition and am not Leader of the House I am always very free with the Govern-

ment's time. If they are prepared to concede a debate on the order every six months and not every year, who am I to complain? Nevetheless, a year is a reasonable time. I repeat that I do not like the idea of a formal inquiry, because I believe that it would go to weakening the Government's resolve.
If at the end of the debate there is to be a Division and there are hon. Members who are determined to a vote against renewal of the Act—I hope very much that they will not, because they have all said that they are against terrorism, and if they are against terrorism they should not vote against renewal—

Mr. Flannery: Is the right hon. Gentleman implying in his last few words that if we vote against the Act we are for terrorism?

Mr. Whitelaw: The hon. Gentleman must not put words into my mouth. I never said any such thing.

Mr. Flannery: The right hon. Gentleman will be able to see in Hansard.

Mr. Whitelaw: It will not say that, if Hansard reports what I thought I said. If I did not say what I thought I said, very well—the hon. Gentleman can argue what I said. But I thought that I said that I very much hoped that hon. Members would not vote against renewal. If one is firmly against terrorism one would believe it right to renew these provisions for another year. That is my firm belief and that is what I hope will be done. If there is a Division I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will vote for the renewal.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I begin by dealing with two points concerning Liverpool. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Scotland Exchange (Mr. Parry) raised the question of the interpretation of the legislation. I think that the difference is that it is one thing to be prosecuted under the early part of the Act on the question of proscription, but it is something entirely different to be detained and then charged with murder. That charge is laid not under this Act but simply on the basis of murder.
I was asked how many people had been detained after the Liverpool bomb incident. Six people were detained following


inquiries into that incident. Three were in the building at the time and were released after a few hours. Two were detained two days later. I granted extensions of detention and inspected the cases. Both people have been charged in connection with the incident. One person has been excluded. Those figures are important in an incident such as that. I think that the sharpness of what happened is what the people of Liverpool had expected of the police in that case.
Let me deal now with the Judges' Rules. If my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) looks at Hansard for 23rd February he will see the dates when he was involved with the Home Office on the matter that he has raised. Having learned from experience of my previous job, I gave instructions when I went to the Home Office that any matter done in the office which related to anything that hon. Members had put to me should be indicated to the Member concerned. If that was not done I shall look into the matter, but I suggest that my hon. Friend looks at the relevant part of Hansard. I can see that my hon. Friend is not taking the point I am trying to signal to him without making a point about what happened in the past.
I will not bandy words about police pay. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) says that he has no confidence in me on that subject. I will not say in whom I had no confidence when I first looked at the police pay question. I do not think that this is relevant to the matter in hand.
There is also the question of sharing intelligence with the EEC. Britain took the initiative in proposing co-operation on this matter. Working parties have been set up over the past few months and I will chair a meeting in May of EEC Ministers of the Interior to consider the results of their work. We shall see what more can be done.
I think that the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) misunderstood me on the question of identity cards. I was not talking about identity cards, and we have not changed our mind therefore. I was referring to authority for passengers to have to complete landing cards at the ports, and that is rather different. This does not mean that cards will have to be used now. The chief officer of police at

each port will decide whether the cards will help, and the change in the other order is simply to do what we thought we had been doing all along. If cards are used and a passenger refuses to complete one he will be liable to prosecution with a penalty of £200 or three months' imprisonment or both.

Mr. Powell: So the position is changed which hitherto was that completion was on a voluntary basis, as stated by the Minister on 12th June 1972. Completion where cards are issued is to be on a compulsory basis.

Mr. Rees: Use will be compulsory only where the police want to do it. It will not be done on a large scale.
I turn now to the generality of the debate. There is a threat from the PIRA. Northern Ireland Members know that there is a threat from a wide variety of groups. The proscription of the PIRA was referred to. There is an offensiveness in its members collecting together and marching after they have killed and bombed. That does not mean that the legislation cannot be used to detain and exclude people who belong to other organisations. The only limitation is on proscription. There is no limitation on dealing with other para-military organisations in the rest of the Act.
I believe that the legislation is necessary and that normal powers are not enough. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) made the interesting point that terrorism is not temporary. That is all too true. I listened briefly to Northern Ireland Questions the other day, and the Parliamentary Secretary made a point then that has stuck with me about the nature of violence in Northern Ireland. He said that it was constantly changing, and that in the end one wondered how often it could change. It changes from day to day. First of all it is violence against policemen, and then it is against business men. First of all it is bombing in the towns, then it is bombing in the country. This is not brought about by clever organisation. In fact there is little in the way of organisation. There is no great staff work where something is done because a general has a point of view about how he will break through a line, and that continues until he is replaced. My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast,


West (Mr. Fitt) knows about the changing nature of the violence and the problems for the police in not knowing where it will come from next.
I have an idea of the nature of the people who telephone my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) and abuse him. These callers play on people's fears of assassination.
Terrorism cannot be defeated by force alone. There is a political aspect in Northern Ireland. But it is my job to ensure that I protect the people of this country through the police. Those hon. Members who do not want this legislation renewed should think what they would do if they had my responsibility and they did not renew the powers, and two days later there were bombings. The come-back from the British people would be such that I would not want to face it. Until we are sure that the threat is no longer there—and that may be a long time—we must have the legislation.

Mr. Litterick: But my right hon. Friend can never be sure.

Mr. Rees: My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Litterick) is good at making points, but his arguments are never crystal clear or logical.
In my view this legislation must be passed tonight. When I put the point earlier about looking at the legislation I was not showing signs of weakness. My hon. Friend said it was just a fig leaf and that he would vote against the order anyway. The easy way for me would be to say that I am for the legislation, and that I will make no changes and at the end of the day I make no commitment.
As far as individual cases are concerned, complaints can be made against the police. But there is nothing to be gained by making complaints and not using the procedures provided. That does no good to the police and does not bring about changes. I get the feeling that the House is concerned only with the razzamataz of dealing with complaints. I understand that there are problems with the Judges' Rules. These are different in Scotland, and the Criminal Law Revision Committee in 1972 recommended against making the Judges'

Rules statutory. I am surprised by some of the things that I have heard tonight about the Judges' Rules. I am seized of the point that giving the seven days as opposed to two days does have an effect on the Judges' Rules. I will look at that.
As for the point made about fishing expeditions—picking people up not under the terms of the legislation—the powers of arrest under the Act can be used only where the constable concerned reasonably suspects that someone is concerned in acts of terrorism, or their preparation or instigation, or may be subject to an exclusion order and guilty of an offence under the Act relating to terrorist activities. It would be improper and illegal for the powers of arrest to be exercised for any other purpose. If those powers are being exercised wrongly it should not happen, but I need examples, and not generalities, to let me look into the question.
If, in carrying out their investigation, the police find that a man has been indulging in tax evasion, they must make a judgment. But if they decide to prosecute for that they will not be using this legislation in questioning the man for that purpose, because their questioning will not have been for that purpose.

Mr. Litterick: On my right hon. Friend's earlier point, I suggested that the commitment that he made was not really a commitment. It was made in a very wishy-washy way and did not seriously convince anybody.
Secondly, in connection with the case that I mentioned, many people are afraid to use the complaints procedure. My right hon. Friend will have to think seriously about that.

Mr. Rees: On the first point, if my hon. Friend regards what I said as being wishy-washy he knows what to do. But he said that whatever I said he would vote against it. That is the point he made the first time round.
I was saying that there is no question of ending this legislation while the PIRA is engaged in violence. I should be failing the people of this country if I put an end to this legislation in those circumstances.
On the details, I shall consider ways of looking at the legislation. I shall not have another Gardiner investigation. As


I explained earlier, there are certain aspects that I shall look at, but there is no question of a political decision by an outside committee. The political decisions must be taken in this House. In my view political decisions are too often taken outside. It is for us to make them.
As for the working of the Act. I want to provide reassurance, but it would be wrong—I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo)—to try to buy a few votes at half-past eleven so that by the end of the day I won.
I cannot consider terms of reference at the moment. It would be wrong to do so without more detailed investigation. But I want to provide reassurance and information. I shall consider what I can

Division No. 86.]
AYES
[11.29 p.m.


Alison, Michael
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Phipps, Dr Colin


Anderson, Donald
George, Bruce
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Archer, Peter
Golding, John
Ress, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Armstrong, Ernest
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Graham, Ted
Rodrick, Caerwyn


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Roper, John


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Griffiths, Eldon
Ross, Stephen (Ilse of Wight)


Bates, Alf
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Bean, R. E.
Hampson, Dr Keith
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Beith, A. J.
Hardy, Peter
Rowlands, Ted


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Harper, Joseph
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Harrison, Walter (Walefield)
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Biggs-Davison, John
Horam, John
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Sims, Roger


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Hunter, Adam
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Buchanan, Richard
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Snape, Peter


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
John, Brynmor
Spearing, Nigel


Campbell, Ian
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Spriggs, Leslie


Carlisle, Mark
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Carson, John
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Cartwright, John
Judd, Frank
Stoddart, David


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Kaufman, Gerald
Stradling Thomas, J.


Cockcroft, John
Kerr, Russell
Strang, Gavin


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael
Kilfedder, James
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Cohen, Stanley
Lamborn, Harry
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Coleman, Donald
Lawrence, Ivan
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Cowans, Harry
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Thomas, Mile (Newcastle E)


Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
McCusker, H.
Tinn, James


Cryer, Bob
MacKenzie, Gregor
Urwin, T.W.


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Maclennan, Robert
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Davidson, Arthur
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
McNamara, Kevin
Ward, Michael


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Marks, Kenneth
Watkinson, John


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
White, Frand R. (Bury)


Dempsey, James
Mather, Carol
White, James (Pollok)


Dodaworth, Geoffrey
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Whitehead, Phillip


Dormand, J. D.
Meacher, Michael
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Dunlop, John
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Whitlock, William


Dunn, James A.
Molyneaux, James
Williams. Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Dunnett, Jack
Morris, Charles R.(Openshaw)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Eadie, Alex
Moyle, Roland
Winterton, Nicholas


English, Michael
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Woodall, Alec


Ennals, David
Noble, Mike
Young, David (Bolton E)


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley



Farr, John
Page, John (Harrow West)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Forrester, John
Pendry, Tom
Mr. Thomas Cox and


Freud, Clement
Penhaligon, David
Mr. Joe Ashton.

do. I fully understand that anything that was to be done would have to be done in an independent fashion.

Mr. McNamara: Will my right hon. Friend make a statement in the House?

Mr. Rees: At the appropriate moment, yes.
I believe that legislation is necessary. I fully accept that from time to time it may need amending, but we need these extra powers while there are paramilitary forces around, and while there is death and destruction that may end tomorrow, or the day after, I believe that this order should be passed.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 140, Noes 15.

Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Skinner, Dannis


Bidwell, Sydney
Litterick, Tom
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Canavan, Dennis
Loyden, Eddie



Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
Maynard, Miss Joan
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Flannery, Martin
Parry, Robert
Mr. Ian Mikardo and


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Richardson, Miss Jo
Mr. Stan Thorne.


Lamond, James

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976 (Continuance) Order 1977, a draft of which was laid before this House on 24th February, be approved.

Orders of the Day — POLICE (COMPLAINTS PROCEDURE)

11.41 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Dr. Shirley Summer-skill): I beg to move,
That the Police (Withdrawn, Anonymous, &amp;c. Complaints) Regulations 1977, a draft of which was laid before this House on 17th February, be approved.
These draft regulations are intended to provide for a part of the new complaints procedure which we are introducing under the Police Act 1976. They seek to do two things. First, they dispense with the requirements of Section 49 of the Police Act 1964 and of Section 2(1) of the Police Act 1976 where a person who has made a complaint states in writing that he withdraws it or that he does not want any further action taken in regard to it. Secondly, they allow the Police Complaints Board, on the request of the chief officer concerned, to dispense with those same requirements where the complaint is anonymous, repetitious or incapable of investigation. I will go into these terms in more detail in just a moment.
The requirements that we are talking about here—the requirements of Section 49 of the Police Act 1964 and of the Police Act 1976—are the requirement on a chief officer to record and have investigated any complaint by a member of the public against a member of his force, to refer it in certain circumstances to the Director of Public Prosecutions for consideration of any criminal aspects of the case and to refer it to the Police Complaints Board for consideration of the disciplinary aspects.
I shall, if I may, deal first with the case where a complaint is withdrawn—that is covered in Draft Regulation Sand then move on to other types of complaint that are covered in Draft Regulation 4, because the two sorts of case are dealt with in significantly different ways.
It was generally agreed when we were discussing the Police Bill in Standing Committee last year, that it should not be necessary for the police to conduct a full investigation and refer the results to the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Board where a complainant agrees to withdraw the complaint or decides that he does not after all wish there to be any

further action. This may be because he decides that his complaint was not really justified or because he considers that he has made his point by simply drawing attention to the matter. Provision for this was made in Section 2(2)(b) and 6(1) (f) of the Act, and Draft Regulation 3 gives effect to the policy which we agreed was right, providing however the necessary safeguard for the public by ensuring that the withdrawal must be in writing.
Draft Regulation 3(1) deals with Section 49 of the 1964 Act and provides that a complaint need not be investigated there-under if the complainant withdraws his complaint or states that he does not wish any further steps to be taken. The withdrawal or statement must be in writing and be signed by or on behalf of the complainant.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Can the Minister confirm that if a complaint is made orally, possibly by a complainant who is illiterate, none the less the withdrawal must be In writing?

Dr. Summerskill: I can confirm that, and it would be signed—as I have just said—on behalf of the complainant if he could not write.
Section 2 of the 1976 Act is dealt with by subsection (2)(b) of that section itself but Draft Regulation 3(2) provides, similarly, that a withdrawal or statement must be in writing if it is to have the effect of dispensing with the requirement of Section 2(1) relating to the submission of investigation reports to the Board.
None of this means that, where the chief officer—in practice the deputy chief constable—considers that an allegation made in a complaint is sufficiently serious to justify investigation, even though the complaint itself has been withdrawn, he is precluded from so doing. He can—and in such a case no doubt will—still arrange for the matter to be investigated but he will do so as an internal matter and there will be no reference to the Complaints Board.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Can the hon. Lady tell us where the meaning or definition of the words "disapplies" in Section 3(2) can be found? It does not appear in the Oxford English Dictionary, the supplement to the OED, Chamber's Twentieth Century Dictionary or Webster's New International


Dictionary. Has the word been invented by the Home Office tonight? Why does it not appear in the interpretation clause? Can the hon. Lady also tell us what is the significance of the comma that appears immediately before "disapplies"?

Dr. Summerskill: The comma is a misprint for which I apologise. I agree that the word "disapplies" does not appear in the interpretation clause. If I catch Mr. Deputy Speaker's eye later, I shall inform the hon. Gentleman of the Home Office's definition of the word.
I turn now to the other part of these Draft Regulations. Draft Regulation 4 allows the Board to dispense with the requirements of Section 49 and of the 1976 Act in certain other circumstances. At the moment, because there is no independent element in the complaints procedure, the police feel bound to investigate every complaint in what may sometimes be an unnecessary amount of detail.
During the discussions last year in Standing Committee and in the House, there was a general feeling that both the police and the Complaints Board should be able to concentrate on the more serious and important complaints and that there should be some procedure which would allow complaints which for various reasons did not justify a full investigation to be disposed of more quickly.
However, it is not easy to translate that general agreement into a statutory provision. It was suggested that we ought to think in terms of a distinction between "trivial" and "serious" complaints. But not all apparently trivial complaints prove on investigation to be trivial, while some apparently serious complaints prove to have little substance. We felt nevertheless that there was scope for a shortened procedure and we sought the necessary regulation-making power in what is now Section 6(1)(g) of the 1976 Act.
In the Committee discussions, hon. Members suggested that anonymous and repetitious complaints were ones to which a shortened procedure should apply, and we have covered both of these in the Draft Regulations. The terms are defined in the schedule. A complaint is defined in paragraph 2 as anonymous if it does

not give the complainant's name and address or, if he is complaining about behaviour towards someone else, that person's name and address and if it is not reasonably practicable to find out the name and address. Paragraph 3 defines a repetitious complaint as one that is substantially the same as a previous complaint which has already been dealt with under the new complaints procedure and that does not make any significant fresh allegations.
We have now added a further category the complaint where it is not reasonably practicable to complete the investigation. Examples might be where, although the letter containing the complaint bore a name and address, the address proved, upon inquiries being made, not to exist; or no one of that name was know there; or he or she had moved and could not be traced; or it might be possible to contact the complainant but he refused to make a statement or to give any assistance to the officer who was investigating the case.
We have also sought to deal with the situation where someone complains about something that has happened to a third party and the third party either states in writing that he does not want to support the complaint or refuses to give any assistance in the investigation. These are all situations which have in the past caused the police a lot of trouble because they have been obliged to pursue the complaints further than was really justified in order to prove that they have not neglected the matter.
What we now propose is that where the deputy chief constable is satisfied that a complaint falls into one of these categories specified in Regulation 4 he should be entitled, if he thinks it appropriate, to ask the Complaints Board to agree that no further action should be taken. He may be able to do this immediately if the complaint is anoymous. In the case of an apparently repetitious complaint someone will have to look at the file and compare it with the previous complaint. In other cases, consideration of a request to the Board will not arise until, for example, it has proved not to be reasonably practicable to trace or get in touch with the complainant or other preliminary inquiries have proved abortive.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Perhaps I may draw the hon. Lady's attention, and yours,


Mr. Deputy Speaker, to column 900, 901 and 902 of the Official Report of the other place for Monday 7th March. The hon. Lady really need not make her speech, because word for word, precisely, it is all there, as it was read out in the other place. Of course, this shows a remarkable and good degree of consistency. However, I should have thought that the hon. Lady might conceivably have changed one comma or one word.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: She has.

Mr. Griffiths: The only word that the hon. Lady has uttered differently is the wretched word "disapply".

Dr. Summerskill: I am sorry that that is the only criticism of my speech that the hon. Gentleman can find to make. It was an extremely good speech that was made in the House of Lords, and I am sure that hon. Members of this House deserve just as good a speech.
The deputy chief constable would be required to give his reasons for assigning the complaint to the category in question and, where appropriate, to provide relevant evidence—for example, a copy of the previous complaint, an account of the efforts made to trace the person concerned, and so on.
When it received such a request, the Board would consider whether it agreed with the deputy chief constable's assessment. If it did, it would tell him so and no further action would be necessary on the part of the police, except to record in the complaints register that the matter was closed. It would be for the Complaints Board to inform the complainant of the outcome where he could be contacted.
The Board would not be allowed to reject the request without consulting the deputy chief constable. If, in the end, it did reject it, the complaint would then have to be pursued in the usual way and the report of the investigation would normally be referred to the Board in due course under Section 2(1) of the 1976 Act.
These Draft Regulations have been laid after the required statutory consultations with the Police Advisory Board, on which the various police and local authority organisations are represented. They are an integral part of the new procedures introduced by the 1976 Act and we in-

tend that they should come into operation on the same day as the main provisions of the Act.
Hon. Members will have noted that the operative date is not specified in these Draft Regulations and that no Commencement Order to give effect to the relevant provisions of the 1976 Act has yet been made. The regulations have already been approved in another place. If they are also approved in this House, we hope to settle the date finally in consultation with the Police Advisory Board and the Police Complaints Board and we hope to make the necessary Commencement Order very shortly after that. Hon. Members should know, however, that we have in mind 1st June as the starting date. The new procedures will apply to complaints relating to conduct which occurred on or after that date. There will be no restrospection.
I should take this opportunity of mentioning that a number of other regulations have to be made to bring the new procedures into operation. These regulations will be made once the draft of the present regulations have been approved. They will, among other things give effect to the assurances given while the Bill was going through Parliament concerning the supply of a copy of a complaint to an officer about whom it was made, and the right of the Police Federation to use its funds to support defamation proceedings.
As I have said, the purpose of the present draft regulations is, first, to remove the withdrawn complaint from the ambit of the complaints procedure and, secondly, to allow the police and the Complaints Board to concentrate time and effort on the potentially serious complaints by enabling them to dispose more expeditiously of complaints which for certain specified reasons do not justify the full treatment.
I hope the House will agree that this is something which will be of benefit not only to the police but also to the public at large.

11.56 p.m.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: The hon. Lady has been in the House long enough to know that a Minister's interpretation to the House of what words in legislation mean carries absolutely no weight in law whatever. I ask the hon. Lady what the word "disapplied" means.


and where it can be found, so that the court interpreting it for the first time can do so with confidence.
It does not make the slightest difference if the Minister tells us that the Home Office thinks it means something, because that does not bind any court whatever. The Explanatory Note on page 5 of the instrument states:
By virtue of Regulation 3, the requirements of section 49 of the Police Act 1964 (investigation of complaints) are dispensed with and section 2(1) of the Police Act 1976 (reference to the Police Complaints Board of reports) is disapplied where the complainant notifies the chief officer of police".
If "disapplied" means "dispensed with" why are not those words "dispensed with" used? If it means something different, why does it not appear in the interpretation clause? It is not a word that appears in any work of reference and the research section of the Library is unable to find it. If the research section of the Library cannot find it, how can a court find it?
Paragraph 3(2) reads:
shall have effect if, and only if, the complainant gives to the chief officer concerned such notification as is mentioned in paragraph (1)".
Paragraph 1 of what? Paragraph 1 of this order reads:
In exercise of the powers conferred on me by section 6 of the Police Act 1976(a), and after consulting the Police Advisory Board for England and Wales in accordance with section 46(3) of the Police Act 1964(b)".
That is the first paragraph in this order. Does it mean that? I do not think it can mean that because no notification is given in it. I think it was intended to mean, but did not say, "paragraph 1 of this section". But it does not say that. The regulations are defectively drafted. Or is it Regulation 3(1)? It does not in fact say so.
It appears that these regulations were drafted by some joker in the Home Office who delights in inventing horrible words and whose delight in so doing is so great that he does not competently do the rest of his job, which is to draft regulations which are meaningful.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Will the hon. Gentleman direct me to where in the regulations the word "disapplied" occurs? I can find it only in the Explanatory Note.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Regulation 3(2) reads:
Subsection (2)(b) of section 2 of the Act of 1976 (which, disapplies the provisions of sub-section (1)".
The hon. Gentleman would doubtless have noticed that if, as I did, he read the regulations before the debate. However, it looks as though he read only the Explanatory Note which appears at the end.
The House has no power to amend in-competently drafted Statutory Instruments. Therefore, all that the Minister can do is to ask the leave of the House to withdraw the incompetently drawn Statutory Instrument so that it can be re-presented competently drafted.
Indeed, I wonder whether the Minister had done anything other than read the Explanatory Note since she had to ask her PPS to go running to the Box to ask what "disapplies" means. I can only conclude that she had not read the regulations and was merely reading from the Lords Hansard, apparently regarding that as adequate for this debate. I recommend her to read the regulations produced by her Department before coming to the House to recommend that it should approve them.

12.2 a.m.

Mr. Michael Alison: My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) has put me in a bit of a dilemma. In principle, the Opposition welcome any attempt to lighten the work load on the police service or to minimise the complaints sent to the Police Complaints Board. But, like my hon. Friend, I have some specific points to make on the regulations as drafted. My points are not unconnected with his reference to the words "disapplied" and "dispensed with" which seem to make the regulations thoroughly defective.
The faults that I find are principally in Regulation 3. I hope that the Minister will address her attention to that regulation at least. I dare say that some of my hon. Friends will have further points to make. There is ambiguity about Regulation 3 as drafted. In reality, for the point to be reached at which a complainant might wish to withdraw or to pursue no further his complaint—the two essential paragraphs of the regulation are paragraphs (1)(a) and (b)—an investigation must have been started.
The procedure is that a complainant goes to the police station and his complaint is duly entered in the complaints book. The divisional commander sees the book with the complaint. Then either he, if it is the Metropolitan Police, or the deputy chief constable decides, in the light of the complaint entered in the complaints book, whether to start an investigation. If an investigation is started, that officer is bound to appoint an investigating officer, who interviews the complainant and asks "What is your complaint about?" The complainant then elaborates the complaint to the investigating officer. As a result of discussing the matter with the investigating officer, the complainant may decide that he does not want to proceed further or to withdraw the complaint. I believe that that happens in many cases. But an investigation has started.
In what sense is an investigation under Section 49 of the Police Act 1964 dispensed with? The regulations refer to dispensing with or disapplying an investigation. But the investigation has started. Therefore, what is dispensed with? Is it the subsequent procedure under Section 49 leading up to a report being formally made, with the complaints procedure coming to a formal conclusion and a definitive report—that is Section 49(3) of the Police Act—or does it involve the necessity to refer to the DPP part of that provision? Obviously, something must be dispensed with.
Since the investigation has already begun, what is dispensed with under Regulation 3(1)? As I see it, the investigation which Regulation 3 allows the police to dispense with is irrevocably begun by the necessity of having an exchange between the complainant and the official police investigating officer. I hope that we may have a clear answer on that point.
The Minister said that reference to the DPP was not ruled out if an aspect of the case affecting the Director arose. We are relieved to hear that. It means dispensing with or disapplying the investigation procedure.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: It means something different from the words "dispensing with" in the explanatory note. Perhaps it means "discontinues". The difference is that if one dispenses with

something, presumably one brings about a situation in which the process has not started. If one discontinues it, one acknowledges that it has started. Since they are two different situations, it is essential that we should know which of those two situations the Minister intends.

Mr. Alison: The form of words in Regulation 3(1) means that the requirement in Section 49 of the Police Act 1964 is dispensed with. What are the requirements? The requirements are that investigation should be carried out and a report made. Perhaps the Minister can clarify the situation. This is germane to a point which arises from Regulation 3(3), which says
Where a complainant gives such notification as is mentioned in paragraph (1)"—
that is to say, he does not want the complaint proceeded with or he withdraws it—
and it relates to a complaint…".
I then jump to paragraph (b):
a copy of which has been sent to the Board in pursuance of subsection (1) (a) or 4 (a) of section 2 of the Act of 1976, the chief officer concerned shall cause a copy of the notification to be sent to the Board.
Section 2 of the Police Act 1976 refers to cases where a chief officer of police receives the report of an investigation into a complaint under Section 49 of the Police Act 1964. In other words, one can only get a report in the hands of the Police Complaints Board where a Section 49 investigations has been completed.
But Regulation 3(1) says that the requirements of Section 49 of the Police Act 1964—namely, that investigation should be carried out and completed, leading to the point of report—are dispensed with.
How can the Board get a report emerging from a Section 49 investigation when such an investigation has been dispensed with? It is a meaningless provision. The provision certainly seems to be contradictory and ambiguous. Does it mean that the investigation is allowed to come to a conclusion when a report emerges, in which case something can come into the hands of the Board under Regulation 3(1)(b)? One cannot have it both ways. Apparently, however, that is what the regulation appears to do. It is ambiguous


and contradictory, and there is a fundamental defect in its drafting. There is little point in hoisting upon the police service a contradictory and ambiguous regulation. However, these are narrow points.
I turn to the wider aspects. The police service and the Police Federation in particular are in the news. The relevance of my general remarks arise from the statement issued by the Police Federation on Friday 4th March. It said:
At its special meeting today the Joint Central Committee expressed its disgust and dismay at the Home Secretary's action. En view of this it has been decided: …to decline all further co-operation in the implementation of the Police Act 1976 relating to complaints".

Dr. Summerskill: Will the hon. Gentleman repeat where the statement was issued?

Mr. Alison: It was a statement issued to the Press by the Police Federation from its headquarters in Langley Road, Surbiton, last weekend.
The Federation has decided to decline all further co-operation in the implementation of the Police Act 1976 relating to complaints. That is a serious matter. Does the hon. Lady really believe that this cumbersome, bureaucratic, expensive bit of window-dressing apparatus, which the police resent and which the House voted against on Third Reading, will work without police good will and co-operation? It is extremely unlikely since the Federation has decided not to co-operate with the Police Act.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): The hon. Member is straying wide of the motion before the House. We are discussing what is in the regulations.

Mr. Alison: The point of my reference to the Police Federation's statement it that the Federation has publicly stated that it will not co-operate in the implementation of the regulations.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We are discussing what is in the regulations.

Mr. Alison: What is in the regulations is relevant to the non-co-operation of the Police Federation.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Surely we are discussing not only what is in the regulations but whether the House should approve them. The view of those who will have to operate the regulations is germane.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We are discussing the subject matter of the regulations —nothing else.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. One always yields to your judgment, but we are being asked to approve the regulations for the purpose of their coming into effect. They can come into effect only if the police service implements them. The police service has clearly said that it will not implement them. That is a change from the position during the Committee stage, when it was willing to do so. A new situation has arisen, and the House cannot take a decision if it does not take into account that the police service—for better or worse, wisely or unwisely—will not co-operate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We are discussing the regulations, not the co-operation or non-co-operation of the police.

Mr. Alison: I shall try to restrict myself to what is in the regulations, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The Under-Secretary can forecast dates for the further stages in the development of the regulations.
It is relevant to comment, in the context of what the hon. Lady has drawn to the attention of the House, that what she has said is meaningless and inapplicable if the Police Federation's declared hostility to the Act and the regulations is allowed to apply. The federation has said that the police will not co-operate with the regulations. To that extent, we are bound to make these comments on the forecast that the hon. Lady has made, because the Act and the regulations associated with it, although apparently the subject of definitive debate in the House, and apart from their serious flaws in drafting, are thrown into doubt by the federation's statement.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I follow what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but it is the police view only of these regulations


that is relevant and not the police view of anything else.

Mr. Alison: If that is what is in order, it is fair and unmistakable to say that the police view of the regulations is that they do not believe that they can effectively work because they will not work them. That is the meaning of the specific statement I have quoted. Apart from the drafting flaws, that raises a serious point for the hon. Lady to consider.
What is the point of bringing in regulations of this kind while allowing serious disharmony, loss of morale and disgruntlement in the police to exist to the point where they say that they will not cooperate in working them? The hon. Lady must take on board that the police service is at present in a very sour frame of mind. It is a great tragedy that that should be so.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: The hon. Gentleman will recall that in 1972 we were discussing another matter laying down certain guidelines not dissimilar from this example. Local councillors were told then that they had to carry out certain provisions from the central Government or else be subject to a housing commissioner and whatever else it might be. The hon. Gentleman will recall that 11 councillors of Clay Cross and other councillors elsewhere decided that it was not in their best interests to carry out that process. Can he now tell us whether he agrees with the Police Federation in the view it is taking about these regulations? Is he condoning its action?

Mr. Alison: As I understand it, the attitude of the Police Federation, in what it calls non-co-operation—I am not certain what the implications are—is that the police will follow the old-fashioned procedure of working to the letter of the law. If they work to the letter of the law of the regulations, which are in any case defectively drafted, the chaos that will rule and rage is beyond conception. As I understand it, they may find themselves forced to work to the letter of the law. I am not saying that they will do it—the Act has not been implemented yet—but that is a simple statement of their policy if they do not get a satisfactory statement from the Government. If they adopt the old-fashioned system of working to rule, the rules will have to

be absolutely watertight if they are to work properly.

Mr. Skinner: At Clay Cross, they said precisely the same thing—that they wanted to carry out the law as it then stood. They made a clear specific judgment not to harass the housing commissioner, but the hon. Gentleman's Government sent in a housing commissioner.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I see no reference to Clay Cross in these regulations.

Mr. Skinner: I do.

Mr. Alison: If Clay Cross had been a matter of working to rule, it would probably have been very different for the ratepayers there. But we are not allowed to stray too far into that question.
There is a serious situation in the police service. If it is, as it were, to work to rule, the hon. Lady must make certain that the rules are 100 per cent. watertight to make them effective. These regulations are not effective as they stand.
I understand that the Police Federation announced at the weekend that the Home Secretary had been engaged in direct negotiations with it because he shared its view that the Police Council had broken down. Is it true that the Council is about to re-establish itself and that it is about to meet again under official auspices to handle the police service's claim? If so, it is difficult to know exactly what the Home Secretary's attitude towards the Council is. Does he continue to hold the view he expressed in the House on 27th January—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Can the hon. Gentleman relate what he is saying to the regulations?

Mr. Alison: Its relevance is that the police service is in a state of demoralisation at the way in which it has been handled by the Government. If it is driven to the point—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Be that as it may, we are discussing what has arisen as a result of the regulations before the House.

Mr. Alison: The demoralisation will be greatly increased by the clumsy, incomprehensible and contradictory drafting of the regulations. Add that to the existing demoralisation in the service, and one


sees that this is not the psychological moment—

Mr. John Watkinson: Order.

Mr. Alison: The hon. Gentleman is not Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The Government are ill advised to bring forward sloppily and clumsily drafted regulations when the police service is thoroughly demoralised and believes that the best way to secure progress in its pay claim is not fully to co-operate with the Government. I hope that on these grounds alone the hon. Lady will consider that it might well be necessary to take the regulations away, partly because they are defective and partly because they are an added straw on the camel's back that will demoralise the police service.

12.22 a.m.

Mr. A. J. Beith: The regulations appear before the House in response to things that were said in the Committee considering the Police Bill. They are a very appropriate response by the Government to the desire expressed in all parts of the Committee that the complaints procedure should not be over-burdened by anonymous and trivial complaints, although they proved difficult 'o define, or complaints which the complainant wished to have withdrawn.
If the regulations have technical defects they must be examined, but the purpose is clear. Those involved in the Committee found it an interesting experience. I was glad to have the Under-Secretary's assurance that she hopes to see the Act implemented later this year and the remaining regulations brought before the House, because the Committee got into an extraordinary state, and we nearly did not provide for regulations to come before the House at all. Because of a combination of hesitation by some of the hon. Lady's hon. Friends and the tribulations of Conservative Members, we might never have had a complaints procedure. Having failed to vote against Second Reading, the Conservatives voted against Third Reading, changing their minds practically in Committee. I was forced to the conclusion that if the Conservatives could avoid having a complaints procedure of any kind they would

do so. I was relieved that we emerged from Committee with such a procedure.
There is no perfect way in which the regulations can be drawn, but it is important that we provide the means for an independent element in dealing with complaints against the police. As I said repeatedly in the early stages of the Act's passage, I am convinced that it is in the interests of the police as well as the community that this procedure should be introduced, with the modifications which the regulations embody. It is in the interests of the police for the community to see that complaints are handled properly within the police force and that wrongdoing is quickly spotted and rooted out, with no doubts about how these matters arc dealt with.
There is another side to the coin, and it shows precisely why I feel that the police must recognise the need for that independent element of investigation. I recognise, equally, that their confidence that the community is behind them must be maintained, and I therefore share much of the concern that the House expresses at the reaction of the police forces in the present situation and at the deep distress right through those forces at the way in which the pay claim has been handled. This is not the occasion on which to go into that there will be other opportunities. The relevance tonight, however, is this. Alongside our expectation of the police that they will abide by an independent complaints procedure, they have the expectation that they will receive the backing of the community in the difficult task they must perform according to exacting standards that this complaints procedure requires.
I do not believe that any policeman I know—certainly not in my constituency —will in any way seek to prevent complainants from making proper use of what the regulations lay down. It ill behoves the Conservatives to seek in some way to encourage the police not to implement the law of the land as passed by this House. That would be a ludicrous position for the Conservatives to adopt.
There is no statement before the House, and I shall be very surprised if, when such a statement is produced by the Police Federation, it carries the interpretation that has been placed upon it by some hon. Members. I believe that once the House decides that these regulations,


together with the corpus of the Police Act, are the law of the land, the policemen I know will wish to see them complied with, whatever their personal views.

12.27 a.m.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I should make it plain at the outset that I know no police officer or senior official of the Police Federation who will ever do anything but carry out the will of Parliament as expressed in the law. This is the duty of the police. That is their oath of office. There need be no anxieties on that score—

Mr. Skinner: We shall see.

Mr. Griffiths: —in Clay Cross or anywhere else.

Mr. Max Madden: Does the hon. Member wish to declare an interest in this matter?

Mr. Griffiths: I am proud and delighted to declare an interest, but I had imagined that it was not unknown to hon. Members present that I have a connection with the Police Federation. I am obliged to the hon. Member for his intervention and I am glad to acknowledge it.
I reiterate simply that the police service of this country, which most of us would agree is the best in the world, will uphold the law in respect of the police service as in respect of everything else. But these regulations demonstrate above all else that the police alone among our fellow citizens—with the exception of the Army —are unique. They are the only ones of our fellow citizens who are, by decision of Parliament, to have complaints made against them in an institutionalised fashion with a Board the sole task of which will be to hear those complaints and, in certain circumstances, to dispose of them.
The police are unique, and the regulations underline their uniqueness. They are unique in all kinds of other ways. Therefore, they must expect that they are unique in respect of complaints. They have to live where they are told and work when they are told, including weekends and nights. They may not get into debt, they may not take in a lodger and they may not take an alternative job to make money on the side. They may not even grow a beard, except with their chief

officer's permission, and then only on night duty.
The police are unique in the job they do. They are the only civilian body of our fellow citizens who are expected to place their bodies between the law-breaker and the law of the land. They willingly do all these things, but they get somewhat disturbed and surprised when they are treated as unique in all such matters as complaints, work, danger, anti-social hours and the wearing of numbers, Yet when it comes to dealing with pay and conditions they are not treated as unique at all.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order—

Mr. Griffiths: I shall not say any more about that.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If that is the situation, I will leave the matter where it is.

Mr. Griffiths: I am obliged, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Those of us who sat through the most interesting Committee stage on the Bill know that there is a perfectly good reason why the regulations we are considering tonight are defective and otiose. They proceed in the first instance from a Bill that is defective and otiose. It cannot be at all surprising that a child is deformed when the parent is even more deformed.
If the matter were not so serious, it would be ludicrous. The first group of provisions deal with complaints which have been withdrawn. It is faintly preposterous that the House should be spending a good deal of time and generating a great deal of paper in order to tell the Board that it should not deal with a complaint when the complainant has already decided that he does not wish to proceed with it. This is so self-evident that when a person laying a complaint decides that he does not wish to proceed, that should be the end of the matter. But no, there is a very complex procedure in Regulation 3 of the draft Statutory Instrument which deals with what must happen when someone decides not to go ahead with a complaint. Many people will think that we have taken leave of our senses in imposing on the police and the Complaints Board this long-winded, expensive procedure for dealing with complaints that complainants do not wish to press.
The next group of provisions deal with the actual steps that must be taken in dealing with anonymous complaints. The very nature of an anonymous complaint means that it should not be dealt with in the first place. How is the Complaints Board to deal with it? Who has made the complaint? The Board can hardly send for Mr. Anonymous to interrogate him about his complaint. To whom does a police officer go when he is sent to investigate an anonymous complaint? The officer complained against is known, but what is the objective in having the Board examine a complaint from someone it does not know?

Mr. Peter Hardy: Is it not the case under the present and previous arrangements that if a chief constable receives an anonymous complaint about a constable he may feel it right to proceed with the investigation of that complaint, and that that system might be more offensive than these arrangements?

Mr. Griffiths: The hon. Member may surmise that and he might well be right. I do not know. We have to deal with the regulations before us tonight. The point I am making is that in any place other than the House of Commons people would think that we have taken leave of our senses when we elaborate procedures for dealing with complaints that a complainant does not wish to press and complaints that come from someone who remains anonymous.
Then we come to the question of repetitious complaints. I acknowledge that the hon. Lady has been helpful. This point was made and the Government have met it, and I welcome that part of the regulations.
But then I go on to the other kind of complaints, those that are incapable of investigation. What on earth are we doing spending our time in laying down elaborate procedures to enable the Complaints Board to deal with complaints that we ourselves say, by statute, are incapable of being investigated? It illustrates the absurdity of the procedure that we are setting up.
I suppose that it would not matter if the police service was so flush with resources, so overwhelmed with surplus

manpower and so unpressed by crimes of violence that it could take on these things without any trouble. It could do a little work on the anonymous complaints. It could have some fun with them and could then get going on the complaints that were incapable of being investigated. Having had a good time with them, it could go on to the complaints that complainants had withdrawn.
Unfortunately, however, our police service is not in that position. It does not have spare resources and surplus manpower, or unpressured inspectors and sergeants. The police service is at the sharp end of the worst period of crimes of violence, bombing and theft for many years—and then we add to those burdens by producing this kind of rot. That is what it is—rot. If there is anything that the police service needs less at the moment than being lumbered with this whole new apparatus and all this kind of junk, I cannot imagine what it is.
The Police Federation simply states that because it has lost confidence in the Government—they are its words, not mine—it is not prepared to co-operate. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) was not a member of the Committee.

Mr. Skinner: I was on the Housing Finance Bill Committee.

Mr. Griffiths: Perhaps the hon. Member was, but he did not learn much.

Mr. Skinner: More than you did.

Mr. Griffiths: In fairness to the hon. Member and to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should say that when this complaints procedure was originally proposed the Police Federation took the view that it was quite unnecessary. It was quite satisfied—as I think most of the public were satisfied—with the existing procedure.

Mr. Stephen Ross: Does the hon. Gentleman think that the cases that have been dealt with recently—very distressing cases—would have occurred if a procedure of this sort had been in existence 10 years ago? Might not the complaints that were made anonymously have led to the searching out of the officers who have fallen foul of the law?

Mr. Griffiths: I do not believe that the situation would have been any different. I accept that in the police force there are bad hats. I accept that some policemen become "bent". The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) is very naive if he believes that if this procedure had existed there would have been no pornography or corrupt practices. If he believes that, he is living in a different world.
The majority of men in the police service did not want this change. They strongly opposed it. As a result of the Government's forcing through this change, the service lost arguably the best police officer in Europe—Sir Robert Mark—who resigned because he was not prepared to work this system. He gave as his principal reason for retiring the fact that his advice on the matter of the complaints procedure had not been accepted.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That matter is not before the House at the moment.

Mr. Griffiths: I was merely trying to illustrate the fact that the police service did not think it necessary that the new procedure should be brought in. If the House brings it in, the police service will accept it and no doubt implement it, but the question of how the police will implement it is the key matter that we must consider.
The question before the House tonight is quite clear: should we or should we not put the regulations into effect? It is relevant to consider, although the police service will certainly obey and implement the law, whether it will do so with that degree of co-operation and enthusiasm that alone will make it work. Parliament is bound to take that into account.

Dr. Summerskill: Would the hon. Gentleman say what is the Police Federation's attitude to the regulations?

Mr. Griffiths: I was about to do that. In the case of Regulation 4, dealing with complaints which are repetitious and anonymous and incapable of investigation, it prefers the position this way to the way it was before the hon. Lady brought in the regulations. That is why I shall not vote against them. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] I hope that there is no question about that.

Mr. Stephen Ross: Then what is the hon. Member saying?

Mr. Griffiths: The point I am making is that if the police are not prepared, as they are not prepared, to put their enthusiastic co-operation behind these regulations, they will not work. There is no question of their failing to obey the law, but they will certainly not apply to these regulations the degree of cooperation and enthusiasm which alone will make them work. That is the position today.
For the reasons you gave to my hon Friend, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it would be wrong of me to pursue that matter any further. I merely state it as a fact that it will not be possible for these regullations to be made to work if the police, as they say, do not help in putting them into effect with the co-operation which is necessary.
I was staggered that the Under-Secretary should have to asked my hon. Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) about the statement he read out about this matter. Her own officials have been down to the offices of the Police Federation to discuss this matter. I was present at the time. The statement made by the Federation was provided to her office. It is staggering that she should not even have known about it when she came to the House to commend the regulations.

Dr. Summerskill: I knew perfectly well of the existence of that statement. I was seeking clarification from the hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) about whether it was some more recent statement than 4th March. I got the impression that it might have been issued only a few hours before the debate, such was the drama with which he announced it. It turned out that it was an old statement which appeared some days ago, on 4th March. It is now 9th March. 1 thought that there had been some development since, but I was wrong.

Mr. Griffiths: There have been many developments since. The Prime Minister has been involved as well as the Home Secretary, but apparently neither of them keeps the hon. Lady very well informed. The hon. Lady has said that there is no date for the coming into effect of the


regulations—and I know why that it. It is because she cannot be certain that she will be able to bring the regulations into reality if she does not have the willing support of the police. Before we decide tonight, she must say how she will overcome that practical problem. With the help of the police the regulations will work. Without it they will not.

Mr. Hardy: In a sense the hon. Gentleman has an advantage over me in that I did not serve on the Committee, but I am interested in these matters. If the police do not co-operate in the application of the regulations, surely the hon. Gentleman's party will be placed in considerable embarrassment. It seems that one reason for the regulations being brought forward is to meet the request of his party.

Mr. Griffiths: I am happy to say that my party has not lost the confidence of the police, but I regret to say—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman asked me a question about my party and I must give him an answer. My party has not lost the confidence of the police, but the Government have lost their confidence.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that we shall now return to the regulations we are discussing.

Mr. Griffiths: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) to intervene.
When the Bill was introduced, I thought that it would work because the former Secretary of State for the Home Department gave a number of undertakings. The former right hon. Member for Birmingham, Stetchford, Mr. Roy Jenkins, said that there would be no double jeopardy. He said that the police could use their own funds to pursue for defamation those who made malicious complaints against them. Basically, the Government honoured those undertakings.
I pay full tribute to the previous Home Secretary's successor and the hon. Lady for having, in Committee and subsequently, sought to honour the undertakings that were given by the Government to the police service as the quid pro quo for accepting what it did not want, what it did not believe to be necessary

and what it was convinced would add materially to the pressures and expense placed upon the service. That was the deal that was done. Where the Bill has come unstuck, however, is that due to events that I do not propose to mention now the important link of confidence has been shattered. It is for that reason that the police are saying that they will not co-operate fully in implementing the regulations. The House and the Complaints Board have to take that into account.
I was certainly the first Member—probably the only Member—to speak to Lord Plowden immediately the Prime Minister appointed him head of the Complaints Board. I discussed these matters with him. I congratuate Lord Plowden and his colleagues, and those still to be appointed, on their elevation. I wish them well.
I say to the hon. Lady—I hope that she will take this seriously—that we have brought into existence a new and expensive body that is headed by some distinguished people. It is essential that it should work and work well. If it does not, the public will be disappointed in the sense that they will not feel that the new complaints procedure has got off the ground and the police service will be demoralised. Therefore, it is essential that the hon. Lady should grasp the fact that she owes it to the Complaints Board, the public and the police, before she puts a date to the regulations to be certain that they will work.
In short, the hon. Lady—I rather suspect that it will be her right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister—must get alongside the police service and restore the links that have been broken. If that is not done, no amount of regulations will work and the country as well as the police service will be the worse for that.
I shall not oppose these regulations even though they are as defective and derelict as my hon. Friends have demonstrated. I think they are unnecessary and faintly preposterous, but I shall not oppose them. If the hon. Lady wants them to work, she and her officials must take the trouble to bring the representatives of the police service back into a relationship of confidence with the Government, which they have not yet done. They need to do so as a matter of urgency.

12.50 a.m.

Dr. Summerskill: It is regrettable that the Opposition have given such a churlish reception to the regulations, considering that we have the Police Act firmly on the statute book as the will of Parliament and because the content of the regulations was specifically requested by a Standing Committee. We have done everything possible to meet the requests of the Standing Committee.
As to the further criticisms of the Bill and the claim that the police do not want the regulations, the Police Advisory Board—which has all three police organisations represented on it—has fully discussed the regulations. No representations have been made to the Government by the three police bodies, including the Police Federation, about the regulations. The debate is about the regulations. It is not about the Police Complaints Board. None of the police organisations has had any comment to make on the regulations.
I have, of course, seen the reports—to which the hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) referred—that the Federation has said that it will not cooperate in the implementation of the new procedure, but it certainly has not said this to the Home Secretary. We have had helpful consultations on the new procedures with the Federation and we are confident that this co-operation will continue and that the police are well aware that the Act and the regulations, when they come into operation, will be part of the law of the land.
With regard to the drafting criticisms, to which were hinged the points about police pay, a point was made by the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) who was worried about the word "disapplies". I had a feeling that he might perhaps have found a special or hybrid meaning of the word. The word has a common meaning to most people who would read it, if not to the hon. Gentleman. Section 2(2) of the Police Act 1976 describes circumstances where the provisions of Section 2(1) shall not apply, and this is what is meant by "disapply" in the provisions of Regulation 3(1) of the regulations now before us. In other words, "disapply" means the opposite of "apply".
I now come to the words "dispense with". These words echo Section 6(1)(f)

and (g) of the Police Act 1976. It is the requirements under Section 49 of the 1964 Act that are dispensed with. Before an investigation is started or completed, withdrawal of the complaint makes it unnecessary to start or continue the investigation—but withdrawal may not take place until the investigation has been completed and the chief officer has received the investigation report. In such a case the requirement of Section 2 (1) that the report has to be sent back to the Complaints Board is dispensed with by the combined operation of Section 2(2)(b) and Regulation 3(2).
The answer to the point made by the hon. Member for Barkston Ash is that the complaint may be withdrawn at an early stage—for example, at the first interview of the complainant by the investigating officer. Further investigation is then dispensed with. Otherwise, under Section 49 completion of the investigations would be required. Complaints are sometimes withdrawn at a later stage—for example, when related criminal proceedings against the complainant are over. In such a case the Board may well have received a report as to the stage reached under Section 2(4) of the 1976 Act. A withdrawal after a full report under Section 2(1) has been sent to the Board is less likely. We have to provide for that eventuality in the regulations.

Mr. Alison: The hon. Lady will appreciate that the way the regulations have been drafted and the explanation she has given—for which I am most grateful, because it is enlightening and goes straight to the point—mean that there will be a powerful pull and incentive for the police to secure withdrawal or the discontinuance of a complaint before the point has been reached where investigations must be completed and a report drawn up. There is a powerful incentive for the police to persuade a complainant to withdraw. I do not know that this is entirely satisfactory.

Dr. Summerskill: I do not think we should anticipate such behaviour by the police. It would be extremely unpolice-like, and we did not draw up the regulations with that in mind.
These are the Committee's suggestions, and the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) has totally misunderstood the effect of the regulations.


They will not add to the work of the police; they will enable the police and the Board not to do things that they would otherwise be required to do and which it is not sensible for them to do. The hon. Gentleman was implying that the police would be overloaded with unnecessary work.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned anonymous complaints. There is nothing in draft Regulation 4 to preclude the investigation of a complaint. There will be one of the inquiries in question if it is thought right in the circumstances. It is for the deputy-chief constable to decide whether he wishes to make a request to the Board. He would not be compelled to do so, but if he considers that the implications of an anonymous complaint are so serious that it should be fully investigated he can make a request.
The Opposition have made a great deal of fuss about these extremely desirable regulations that are an inherent part of the Police Act, and I earnestly ask the House to approve them.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Police (Withdrawn, Anonymous, &amp;c. Complaints) Regulations 1977, a draft of which was laid before this House on 17th February, be approved.

Orders of the Day — A534, FARNDON—HOLT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Coleman.]

1.0 a.m.

Mr. John Cockcroft: I should like to thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the many others who are present for staying tonight, for a second time, to debate the important question that lies before us, which for many of my constituents is a major problem. It is a major problem not only to people within the constituency of Nantwich but to many people in Cheshire and, indeed, in Wales.
The A534 road passes through the two villages of Farndon, in Cheshire, and Holt, in Wales. They are roughly midway between Broxton and Wrexham. The River Dee divides the two villages, which are linked by a sandstone bridge built in

the mid-fourteenth century—as long ago as that. It is listed as an ancient monument of both historic and architectural interest and is in a conservation area. On this basis the Department of the Environment should surely bear some responsibility for the preservation of this ancient, indeed unique, bridge.
The road, the A534, is the shortest route for traffic leaving the M6 motorway for the Wrexham industrial estate. The town of Wrexham is designated as a development area, and the industrial estate there is rapidly expanding. Clwyd, of course, benefits from this growth, in particular in the form of the growth of revenue from rates. But most of any road bypassing Holt and Farndon across the Dee would inevitably pass through Cheshire, were such a bypass to be built.
The background to the present situation is that a bypass was first sought as long ago as 1937. Since then the need for action has become steadily greater. In a famous phrase of a one-time Prince of Wales, something must be done. A factor in the predicament of 1977 is the closure of the railhead to the Wrexham industrial estate.
Over the years there has been a monumental exchange of correspondence concerning this matter, at every conceivable level. I said "over the years". One might say "over many long, weary years." For instance, on 11th December 1973 a letter was sent to the then Secretary of State for the Environment—I am well aware that this was under a Conservative Government—requesting a weight and width limit on the bridge as a temporary measure in view of the serious damage being done by large and heavy vehicles. In the end a width restriction was introduced, but no weight limit was introduced at the same time.
There was correspondence between my predecessor as Member for Nantwich, a former Deputy Speaker, Sir Robert Grant-Ferris, and Cheshire County Council, which led to an assurance at that time that
an application for inclusion of the scheme (Holt-Farndon by-pass) in a firm programme will be made in the next few weeks.
As a former Prime Minister once said, a week can, indeed, be a long time in politics.
At that time, some three years ago, a petition with some 1,200 signatures was


sent to the Department of the Environment asking for action. In July 1975 the then Secretary of State for the Environment was approached directly. But all such representations have met with the response that the allocation of money within the county is a matter for the county council of Cheshire to decide. This is where the problem arises, because the banks of the Dee wash not only different counties but also different countries. That is a topical point at this would-be devolutionary time.
On a mileage basis Cheshire will supply two-thirds of the total cost of an eventual bypass, if it comes to pass, and Clwyd one-third. The Welsh counties receive a relatively higher level of the transport supplementary grant, while Cheshire understandably feels that it faces far more disadvantages than advantages from the expansion of the trading estate at Wrexham. The industrial estate there continues to grow, and Cheshire has no control over that expansion.
The fabric of the medieval bridge is constantly damaged by heavy vehicles passing over it. There is now a width restriction of 9½ ft. on the bridge, but in November 1976 a lorry wider than that width attempted to cross the bridge and got jammed. It could be removed only by extensively damaging the walls on either side of the bridge. Three months later there was a similar incident. There have been many incidents of heavy lorries causing extensive damage to the bridge in recent years.
Some lorries have to mount the extremely narrow footpath on the bridge in order to cross it. That is also true of Farndon village itself, which lies a short distance away from the bridge. In the village there is a particularly sharp corner, and heavy lorries have to mount the pavement in order to turn it. Other vehicles are unexpectedly forced to reverse in the narrow main street, so causing traffic chaos. The bridge is so narrow, and has such a narrow footpath, that a pedestrian has to walk sideways, or stop walking at all, when a lorry is passing over the bridge. A cyclist or a push-chair with a baby in it can be forced into the middle of the bridge for lack of a footpath.
On account of the steep inclines on either side of the bridge, the pollution created by heavy lorries grinding up the

hill in low gear is enormous and is certainly a dangerous hazard to many people living in the area. Some people have been made quite ill, admittedly temporarily, by exhaust fumes from the lorries. Some parents of young children who go from home to school across the bridge, have to meet their children rather than let them cross the bridge on their own.
A survey in December last year showed that about 900 large lorries passed over the bridge during a 12-hour period between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. As the volume of traffic grows, vibrations from lorries causes more broken window panes and permanent damage to the structure of the buildings. Some of these are also of architectural and historic interest.
Traffic at night often makes sleep almost impossible for people who live near the bridge. The effects of even larger trucks from the Continent crossing the bridge are an increasing worry. Peaceful demonstrations and deputations to County Hall have produced nothing constructive, although there is, and has been, overwhelming support from those most concerned. Vague intimations of a weight restriction, while a bypass is being considered, seem in the event to dissolve.
It is claimed that a weight restriction cannot be imposed on the bridge because it forms part of an " A " road. Moreover, the foundations of the bridge are structurally sound. That must be admitted. But this totally disregards the present and possibly permanent destruction of village life, certainly in Farndon and possibly in the other village on the other side of the Dee as well.
In December 1976 a new bypass south of Chester was opened. Surely, as a first move, it is now feasible to enforce a weight restriction with regard to the bridge, because heavy vehicles now have a more suitable alternative route to take.
Can we not at least have a weight restriction now, and some constructive assurances about the longer-term future, which would correct the situation? Is not this a special case for treatment?

1.10 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John Horam): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Nantwich (Mr. Cockcroft) for his graphic exposition of a situation, about which no one can be


complacent. I thought that he was particularly eloquent about the problems of pollution and safety connected with the bridge over the River Dee.
I appreciate that traffic problems exist in the twin villages of Holt and Farndon and that in the main these are caused by the bridge over the River Dee. The bridge is old—in fact, it is an ancient monument—and it has a narrow carriageway.
I should make it clear at this stage that the A534 road, which runs through the two villages and goes across the bridge, is not part of a trunk route and is not therefore a road for which the Secretary of State for Transport is the highway authority. The A534 is a principal road, and the highway authorities are the county councils of Cheshire and Clwyd. It is important that everyone should be quite clear on that point. Indeed, I understand that the hon. Gentleman is clear about that matter.
Both the Secretary of State for Wales and the Secretary of State for Transport recognise the need to provide adequate communications for the industrial areas in Clwyd. They see it as their joint function to provide a satisfactory primary road network from which the local highway authorities can develop their own road system.
To the north of Wrexham the primary trunk route is the A483, which takes traffic, via the recently-completed Chester Southerly Bypass, to Merseyside, Manchester and the North of England via the M6 and the M62. Substantial improvements to the A483 from the Chester Bypass to the Welsh border are in course of preparation. Improvements to the same road in Wales are also planned. I expect this route to be fully effective by the mid–1980s. The extension of the M56 to join the dual carriageway leading, via Queensferry, to Shotton is high on my Department's priority list.
To the south of Wrexham the A483 joins the A5, giving links through Shrewsbury to the Midlands and the South. The attractions of the route will be considerably enhanced when the M54 link from Telford to the M6 is completed in the early 1980s. Improvements to the A5 towards the Welsh border are under consideration, as are improvements on the

same road in Wales towards Wrexham. I expect these to get under way in the mid–1980s.
I think, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the strategic trunk road network in this area is being steadily and systematically improved. Clwyd is not disadvantaged in its connection to the main motorway system compared with other areas. That is the picture concerning trunk routes.
As I have already explained, the A534 is not a road for which the Secretaries of State are the highway authority. That, of course, limits the contribution which I am able to make to the resolution of the problem outlined by the hon. Gentleman. I shall, however, sketch in some of the background to the Hol-tFarndon problem and, hopefully, suggest a way in which the authorities themselves might reach a solution to the problem. I shall also comment on the hon. Gentleman's suggestion about imposing a weight restriction on the bridge in the short term.
I understand that most of the heavy vehicles which use the A534 through Holt and Farndon originate from the industrial area to the east of Wrexham and travel towards the Midlands and South of England. Apart from the trunk road system, to which I have already referred, there are two secondary local roads—the A534 to Crewe, which we are discussing, and the A525 to Whitchurch and thence to the West Midlands. Just as the River Dee crossing creates a bottleneck at Holt-Farndon, so also does the crossing on the A525 at Bangor-on-Dee.
There have been proposals for many years for improving the Dee crossings at Bangor and at Holt-Farndon. The first one to be achieved will be at Bangor, where I understand that the Clwyd County Council expects to start construction this year. A new bridge over the Dee at Bangor will certainly make this route more attractive to traffic heading for Whitchurch and the strategic trunk road network to the east and south. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman will realise that some reduction in traffic at Holt-Farndon should flow from that improvement.
The former Cheshire and Denbighshire County Councils were discussing the possibilities of providing a bypass of Holt


and Farndon as long ago as 1968. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman mentioned that it has even more antiquated antecedents than that. In April 1970 the then Minister of Transport announced the inclusion of the scheme in a preparation list for principal roads. The approval in principle allowed the two counties jointly to go ahead with detailed preparation of a scheme.
A firm proposal for a new single carriageway proposal was eventually submitted to the Department in February 1974. The desirability of the scheme is not at issue. The difficulty here, as in so many cases, is the phasing of this construction in a period when funds are particularly acute.
Here we come to the heart of the problem. The nature of the bypass straddling two counties and two countries, if we consider Wales and England to be separate countries, is not a matter on which one county can have complete responsibility. There is always in such a situation a tendency for the two authorities to give different priorities to a particular scheme. This is what is happening here.
The fact is that Clwyd rates its scheme higher in priority terms than does Cheshire, and also Clwyd has more money to back its preferences. Cheshire has less money available for this activity, and Cheshire has a number of pressing town centre problems to which it must pay attention in addition to a scheme such as this. Again, as it happens, Cheshire also has to fund two-thirds of the total cost and can argue that it is receiving less of the total benefit in the sense that it is operating as a transit area for traffic coming from Wrexham to the rest of England.
Under the TPP—the transport and planning programmes system—the plans are made not just for one year but for the following four years—five years in all. As a result of the priorities chosen, Cheshire cannot give this scheme any priority for the next five years. It means that under the present system of priorities there is unlikely to be a start until 1982 or 1983 or later. In such a situation, one has to leave local authorities to make up their minds about priorities. They know the

situation best, and I think that we cannot intervene too much at central Government level to force on them different priorities from those they would naturally choose.
However, in the same way as the Secretary of State for Transport and the Secretary of State for Wales must reach a sensible accommodation between themselves on trunk routes crossing the border, local authorities with responsibilities for principal roads must take the same approach on principal roads. The only constructive suggestion I can make is that the two counties should jointly consider whether they can reach agreement and achieve an earlier start to the construction by pooling their resources and possibly making some adjustments of funds. Such an agreement is, of course, a matter entirely within their discretion. I would urge it upon them.
I have also considered whether the A534 should be included in the national trunk road network but have again come to the decision that the area is well served by the present network and will be much better served when the various improvement schemes have been introduced. Even if the road were to be made part of the trunk road network, it is doubtful whether such an action would improve the prospects of an early construction of the bridge at Holt-Farndon. Money for the trunk road system is scarce and there were further enforced cuts in December and earlier in July. The bypass would still be in competition with other schemes for funds.
I believe that the best way forward is for the two authorities to consider meeting to see whether they can sort out these widely disparate priorities between the two. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman might forward his case by approaching the authorities in that way.
The hon. Member's other suggestion was that in the interim period there should be a weight limit. He said that it would be unusual to have a weight limit on a bridge on a road that is as important as this and carries such traffic. I undertake to look into that suggestion, without commitment, to see whether it is appropriate to the situation. I cannot give the hon. Member a full answer


tonight, but I shall write to him after asking my officials to look into it to see whether we can meet his proposal. I am not sure of the detailed facts, but the hon. Member has made the sugges-

tion in a positive manner and I should like to see whether I can meet it.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes past One o'clock.